NationStates Jolt Archive

to be fair, same as being discriminated against. it's just one among many.

Exactly, the point I have been trying to make all along.

Easy. Remove the former as I directly disagree with it.

Are you sure you mean the former? Because right about...here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12640349&postcount=235), you use blacks getting fewer jobs as evidence for blacks being lazy.

What do you mean 'no'? Do you object to me calling it a branch? Have you confused me with someone else?

...woops, sorry wrong person, was meaning to quote him as saying that this was the study of chance.

Actions, eviorment, war, language, ect.

And you believe these make more black people lazy?

There is no "scientific evidence" that races even exist. Biologically, there is not enough of a genetic difference between the "races" to even label them as such.

There certainly are ethnic trends - a person of a given ethnicity is more likely to carry certain genetic traits because of their lineage - but nothing about any particular ethnicity that makes them inherently inferior or superior to any other ethnicity. A member of any ethnicity can carry the gene that causes sickle cell anemia, for instance. However, because of their lineage, a black person is statistically more likely to carry it.

Racism comes in when you start assuming things about people of a given ethnicity simply because of the stereotypes applied to that ethnicity - or even assuming that a given individual will meet actual statistical averages. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that black people are statistically more likely to be lazy than people of any other ethnicity - so that one is based completely off of stereotypes.

Generally correct actually, although I can't quite remember the point I originally took issue with.:D

My only objection is that, given that the likes of Greater Trostia throw "racist" about like an inquisitor and the term "witch"; sure in the knowledge not of their correctness, but of the effect it will have, one cannot then apply "racism" to a stereotype that praises a black above a white.

one cannot then apply "racism" to a stereotype that praises a black above a white.

um, no. That is stupid. One can certainly apply an UNFOUNDED stereotype that praises a black above a white as racism. The key here is "unfounded"

Generally correct actually, although I can't quite remember the point I originally took issue with.:D

My only objection is that, given that the likes of Greater Trostia throw "racist" about like an inquisitor and the term "witch"; sure in the knowledge not of their correctness, but of the effect it will have, one cannot then apply "racism" to a stereotype that praises a black above a white.

Oh, I am sure in the knowledge of it's correctness. Especially with you, since you admitted to being racist - a rarity among NSG racists. Or have you rescinded that just so you can act outraged again?

My only objection is that...one cannot then apply "racism" to a stereotype that praises a black above a white.

You can, actually.

So, with your only objection dealt with, what now?

Nope. Which goes towards my point.



Yeah, for example TPE stating that statistics of unemployment are a statistic of laziness. Why would he do that, you think? Stupidity or just ignorance?

I can't excuse that, however, I do think you are excessive in your defence of the unemployed. Surely you would concede that a proportion of the unemployed in any society, irrespective of their level of qualification or background, are genuinely lazy?

However, you first accept that apathy cannot be qualified scientfically, then suggest that your having previously contended that one cannot discuss apathy due to its not being a scientific quotient renders you right. Surely that does not follow?

Believing that is the very definition of being a racist
Assuming that differences do exist between races, however the word be defined, (do not try and cop out by saying "they don't" - this is a hypothetical), be they trivial or otherwise, how does propagation of this fact amount to racism? If, say, blacks do really tend to be better at certain athletic pursuits due to racial factors, is it still racist to maintain that? Or must one deny reality to avoid the charge of 'racist'? Because once the term becomes that watered down it is meaningless. Absent an incitement to harm one on account of their race, or regarding them as inferior and thus subhuman, racism becomes no more than the acknowledgement of biological differences.

However, you first accept that apathy cannot be qualified scientfically, then suggest that your having previously contended that one cannot discuss apathy due to its not being a scientific quotient renders you right. Surely that does not follow?

If his point was, in fact, that apathy can't be considered, then it would follow. Course, I haven't really been keeping up with is posts, so eh.

You can, actually.

So, with your only objection dealt with, what now?

Not in the fashion you employ racist you cannot.

Are you sure you mean the former? Because right about...here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12640349&postcount=235), you use blacks getting fewer jobs as evidence for blacks being lazy.

Correct... It's evidence, but not having a job isn't the REASON they're lazy.

And you believe these make more black people lazy?

Not entirely. They do help influence the "rolls" though.

Assuming that differences do exist between races, however the word be defined, (do not try and cop out by saying "they don't" - this is a hypothetical), be they trivial or otherwise, how does propagation of this fact amount to racism? If, say, blacks do really tend to be better at certain athletic pursuits due to racial factors, is it still racist to maintain that? Or must one deny reality to avoid the charge of 'racist'? Because once the term becomes that watered down it is meaningless. Absent an incitement to harm one on account of their race, or regarding them as inferior and thus subhuman, racism becomes no more than the acknowledgement of biological differences.

In the way that recognizing that men tend towards penises and women to vaginas is sexist, yeah.

Course, we've yet to actually use 'racist' in such a manner, but, yanno, whatev.

Oh, I am sure in the knowledge of it's correctness. Especially with you, since you admitted to being racist - a rarity among NSG racists. Or have you rescinded that just so you can act outraged again?

Could you possibly quote that admission. What with my being a cultural snob as opposed to racist, I'd be terribly interested to know where this particular contention arises from.

Incidentally, "or" cannot be employed to start a sentence. Why not go back to school with Neo Art? The two of you seem to get along swimmingly...:)

I can't excuse that, however, I do think you are excessive in your defence of the unemployed. Surely you would concede that a proportion of the unemployed in any society, irrespective of their level of qualification or background, are genuinely lazy?

Certainly, I don't believe anyone ever argued that. The contention has been whether that proportion is higher among blacks than whites, all social considerations being equal.

Not in the fashion you employ racist you cannot.

Why not?

If his point was, in fact, that apathy can't be considered, then it would follow. Course, I haven't really been keeping up with is posts, so eh.

Indeed. Do your find that generally actually?

Could you possibly quote that admission. What with my being a cultural snob as opposed to racist, I'd be terribly interested to know where this particular contention arises from.

I could, if I wanted to search every one of your posts. I don't.

Incidentally, "or" cannot be employed to start a sentence. Why not go back to school with Neo Art? The two of you seem to get along swimmingly...:)

Incidentally, a question mark, not a period, is used to punctuate the end of a question phrase. Perhaps, we could all go back to school together!

Indeed. Do your find that generally actually?

Do my what?

In the way that recognizing that men tend towards penises and women to vaginas is sexist, yeah.

Course, we've yet to actually use 'racist' in such a manner, but, yanno, whatev.

You can believe that this is all caused, in some way, by them being black. That being black just makes you, on average, less intelligent, more violent, etc etc.

Believing in the second, that blacks are just not as capable, is the very definition of racism.

Oh? Hence my hypothetical. I want to know if Neo Art believes it is still racism if it is evidenced that said differences arise out of factually corroborated racial factors. That is to say, if proof of racial differences is put forward. A complicating factor is that the definition of "race" is fluid.

You're right, not just blacks, but negative stereotypes in general. How? Aye, there's the rub, eh? that is a problem.

in a way, I am glad to be living in Hawaii. cultures are so intermixed that lines do tend to blur.

I don't know. I think the key is not so much economic redistribution (although in some cases, maybe there should be a little more), but in creating a climate for economic investment in poor areas. In some cases, this may be something as simple as government projects in areas without employment. One large employer tends to draw more employment from industries that cater to the first one, and then eventually service industries for the general rising income of the population. or instead of a large employer, perhaps a large employer extending an umbrella or blanket for the small business. a semi partnership. if working with state/fed for tax breaks, I can see alot of small businesses growing and thus improving the economy...

add to that my journeyman training idea...

But battling street-crime is necessary for economic investment as well. I'm a little stuck on this... my thoughts would be to liberalize soft drugs. Stop putting people in jail for posession of pot. Concentrate those funds on stopping hard drug traffic. Employ an anti-drug campaign that focuses on illustrating the negative effects that drug traffiking has on society, as opposed to just the personal side effects. That's being done now... the drug campaign, I mean. this problem will be tough to crack...

You need to combine carrot-and-stick approaches in law enforcement. Hiring more police officers, particularly from the community that will they will be policing, will help in relating with poorer neighbourhoods, as well as hopefully improving relations overall. But you also have to get harder on criminals that use firearms in the act of performing illegal activities, and traffikers(sp?) of hard drugs. This includes possession of hard drugs as well, because traffikers wouldn't be dealing if the market wasn't there. I remember several laws a while back, where police had the right to confiscate property where drugs and paraphinalia were found. that got alot of flack from the lawyers...

tougher punishments? say heavy, and I mean heavy fines for convicted traffikers and violent offenders?... say an audit and the fines based on their total wealth? and those fines can be redistributed to other programs...

gotta think about that...

The issue usually isn't forcing people into jobs that they don't want, but hiring certain people from a pool of potential employees. This is what is happening in Toronto. Large-scale recruitment projects that more or less encourage minorities to apply. While this upsets some white people, it is addressing a societal issue, and clearly stipulated as acceptable in the Canadian constitution.think you can dig up some info on this? sounds interesting and I would like to see what type of encouragement they are using.

Improving relations with the police, often means having representation from that community. If the majority of your police force doesn't live in the community they're protecting, than you're already off to a faulty start. agreed.

Much easier said than done. But if we can reduce the feeling of association that many young disenfranchised people have for gang life, than perhaps we can deminish it somewhat. Art usually reflects life first. if we can find ways to turn gangs around. say, instead punishing them like criminals, you have officers and such turning them into neighborhood watch groups... not vigelantes... and have them keep watch on their 'Turf' and even coordinate with other 'gangs'...

that might get them interested in police work...

but getting the gangs to cooperate... that too is extremely trickey...

I could, if I wanted to search every one of your posts. I don't.



Incidentally, a question mark, not a period, is used to punctuate the end of a question phrase. Perhaps, we could all go back to school together!

So, in essence, having railed against the existence of apathy, you then confirm it?

Moreover, why should one accept an axiom upon which you predicate an argument when you refuse to justify it?

Furthermore, your contention regarding grammar is incorrect, and, in any case, I've been to an infinitely better school than you. Why on earth would I lower myself to then going wth you?:D

to be fair, same as being discriminated against. it's just one among many.

Indeed.


My only objection is that, given that the likes of Greater Trostia throw "racist" about like an inquisitor and the term "witch"; sure in the knowledge not of their correctness, but of the effect it will have, one cannot then apply "racism" to a stereotype that praises a black above a white.

Why not?


Assuming that differences do exist between races, however the word be defined, (do not try and cop out by saying "they don't" - this is a hypothetical), be they trivial or otherwise, how does propagation of this fact amount to racism? If, say, blacks do really tend to be better at certain athletic pursuits due to racial factors, is it still racist to maintain that?

No, but it would be racist to assume that a particular black person was (a) good at athletic pursuits simply because he happened to be black or (b) at all interested in athletic pursuits. It would also be racist to push young black children into athletic pursuits because "that's what they're good at" or to suggest that children of other ethnicities ignore such pursuits.

Absent an incitement to harm one on account of their race, or regarding them as inferior and thus subhuman, racism becomes no more than the acknowledgement of biological differences.

Hardly. Let's just say that we had scientific evidence that people with dark skin were statistically better at engineering. It would not be racist to say that the trend existed. If we found genetic factors that seemed to be related, it would not be racist to acknowledge the biological differences.

It would be racist to suddenly start hiring engineers based on skin color rather than the aptitude, experience, etc. of the individuals being hired. It would be racist to start assuming that every black child wanted to or should aspire to be an engineer - or, conversely, that no white child should aspire to that career. And so on....

None of this requires an incitement to harm someone on account of their race, nor does it require seeing them as "subhuman." Those things are extreme racism.

I want to know if Neo Art believes it is still racism if it is evidenced that said differences arise out of factually corroborated racial factors. That is to say, if proof of racial differences is put forward.

I have already answered that question. Post 219. Please don't ask me to repeat myself when I have already addressed it.

Oh?

Yes Oh. How should I put this....

Men tend towards penises because of their Y chromosome. They have a penis because it's a genetic biological thing, aye? Technically, the Y chromosome is the reason they're men to begin with...

Black people, for example, are more likely to have sickle cell, because that gene is more common among black people. If a white guy had the gene, he'd probably get sickle cell as well. Being black doesn't cause anything in this scenario.

However, were one to believe someone was violent because they are black, you begin reaching into racsist areas, I'd say. It's...a careful distinction.

I have already answered that question. Post 219. Please don't ask me to repeat myself when I have already addressed it.

I'm impressed you remember the number of your posts. :)

So, in essence, having railed against the existence of apathy, you then confirm it?

I never "railed against the existence of apathy." You are really trying too hard to be clever.

Besides, it's not that I'm necessarily too lazy to search through 5,941 posts. It's just that you're not worth it. Sorry!

Moreover, why should one accept an axiom upon which you predicate an argument when you refuse to justify it?

Accept it or not, but it wasn't an argument.

Furthermore, your contention regarding grammar is incorrect

Really.

Where did you go to school.

Do you always use periods to indicate questions. Or do you only do that when you forget you're trying to be superior.

and, in any case, I've been to an infinitely better school than you. Why on earth would I lower myself to then going wth you?:D

This last sentence - although you correctly placed a question mark - makes no grammatical sense.

No, but it would be racist to assume that a particular black person was (a) good at athletic pursuits simply because he happened to be black or (b) at all interested in athletic pursuits. It would also be racist to push young black children into athletic pursuits because "that's what they're good at" or to suggest that children of other ethnicities ignore such pursuits.
I am not a determinist so I do not believe good genes automatically equate good results. Nor am I arguing that individuals be classed according to innate ability. I am a libertarian after all, and believe people should choose their way as much as possible. My contention is simply that a belief in biological differences is not enough to constitute racism on its own, and from what I can tell you agree.

It would be racist to suddenly start hiring engineers based on skin color rather than the aptitude, experience, etc. of the individuals being hired. It would be racist to start assuming that every black child wanted to or should aspire to be an engineer - or, conversely, that no white child should aspire to that career. And so on....
I agree.

None of this requires an incitement to harm someone on account of their race, nor does it require seeing them as "subhuman." Those things are extreme racism.
Denying to associate with a person merely on account of their skin colour? That would be racism, yes.

Not entirely. They do help influence the "rolls" though.

The 'rolls' being the individuals who may or may not be lazy?

Yes Oh. How should I put this....
No need to patronise me. I am not stupid.

However, were one to believe someone was violent because they are black, you begin reaching into racsist areas, I'd say. It's...a careful distinction.
Do you apply this criterion at any time that biological differences may account for behavioural ones? For instance, the fairly non-controversial proposition that men are on the whole more inclined to violence than women.

I have already answered that question. Post 219. Please don't ask me to repeat myself when I have already addressed it.
I never meant to. I was by no means attempting to denigrate you - I merely wanted to clarify something. The answer is satisfactory.

I'm impressed you remember the number of your posts. :)

You do realise you've been reported? You might wanna knock some of the snipey posts off.

Furthermore, your contention regarding grammar is incorrect,...

No, he was correct. This:

Could you possibly quote that admission.

Should end with "?" It is a question and should be punctuated as such.

Your assumption that you are somehow superior to the other generalites because you have mastered the fine art of using a grammar check program leads one to believe that you are attempting to compensate for lacking anything real to say. Lord knows that you have said little enough that is actually on topic.

Whatever. Just throwing my two cents in. Don't bother responding; I'm just drive by posting. ;)

No need to patronise me. I am not stupid.


Do you apply this criterion at any time that biological differences may account for behavioural ones? For instance, the fairly non-controversial proposition that men are on the whole more inclined to violence than women.

again, once something is proven demonstrably to be true, or at very least strongly supported by evidence, stating it as fact is not racism/sexism/what have you (although I suppose it COULD be, depending on motivation).

if something has been substantiated AS FACT then noting that fact can not be racism. If it is demonstrably proven that men, on average, are more prone to aggression than women because of being men (IE not cultural or enviornment but because they are genetically men) then we can consider that factual.

if you were to use that to say...argue that men are inferior because of it it could be considered sexism.

racism/sexism/all the other isms basically can be expressed through two methods:

1) arguing that a certain characteristic (typically negative, however the presence of a positive characteristic in one race can be viewed as the absence of a postive characteristic, which inherently becomes viewed as a negative characteristic, in another race) is due to race or whatever, IE genetic, without any factual evidence to support such, or even more so, in the presence of contrary evidence

2) arguing that certain characteristics WHICH HAVE BEEN proven to be caused by genetics as a mark of superiority/inferiority.

You do realise you've been reported? You might wanna knock some of the snipey posts off.

For what? Christ alive, I don't report Greater Trostia for slander.

I don't report Greater Trostia for slander.

What was that about going back to school?

No, he was correct. This:



Should end with "?" It is a question and should be punctuated as such.

Your assumption that you are somehow superior to the other generalites because you have mastered the fine art of using a grammar check program leads one to believe that you are attempting to compensate for lacking anything real to say. Lord knows that you have said little enough that is actually on topic.

Whatever. Just throwing my two cents in. Don't bother responding; I'm just drive by posting. ;)

The latest trend to afflict the streets of NSG; Drive by posting!;)

What was that about going back to school?

Another superb post without a point. Oh no, I was nasty. Quick, run to the moderator!!!

think you can dig up some info on this? sounds interesting and I would like to see what type of encouragement they are using.

Some links and such; http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/communityevents.php

Toronto police are planning a recruitment drive today using the usual draw for young males: sports.
The twist? The targets are South Asian, and the game cricket.
"Whether you come from India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka, cricket is the main game," says Zul Kassamali, co-chair of the force's South Asian Consultative Committee. "It's like hockey is to Canada."
At a time when Toronto police are competing with the OPP, RCMP and other local forces for recruits that will help them better reflect the communities they serve, today's youth/officer match in Scarborough is a friendly way to introduce the idea of a police career to one of several groups the force is targeting - including blacks, Chinese, aboriginals, gays and women.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/ (for a recruitment poster, illustrating diversity in the police force)

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/publications/files/brochures/aboriginalunit.pdf

(a pdf about the aboriginal peacekeeping force, which is essentially a cultural liason between aboriginals in Toronto and the police force in general.)

http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C52.htm

The increasingly multicultural nature of Canadian society is having an impact on Canadian policing. Complaints about the police by members of ethno-cultural and visible minorities include over- policing of their communities, random stops and searches, discrimination in the use of police power, “blaming the victim” when the victim is a member of a minority group and underrepresentation of minorities within police organizations (Griffiths & Verdun-Jones, 1994). The federal government has embarked on a number of initiatives that address police-minority relations. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, the 1984 Multiculturalism Directorate, cross-cultural training for RCMP officers and the 1989 RCMP sponsored conference, Policing for a Pluralistic Society.



if we can find ways to turn gangs around. say, instead punishing them like criminals, you have officers and such turning them into neighborhood watch groups... not vigelantes... and have them keep watch on their 'Turf' and even coordinate with other 'gangs'...

that might get them interested in police work...

but getting the gangs to cooperate... that too is extremely trickey...

Eeeechh.... this idea just doesn't do it for me at all. It's like endorsing a quiet partnership between official police forces and organized crime. Having people take pride in their neighbourhood and encourage community policing is one thing, but working with gangs that primarily exist to run narcotics just gives me the willies.

Indeed. Do your find that generally actually?

Take issue WITH, not take issue to. Please try to learn English in a generally recognised form, it does lend itself better to comprehension.

Could you possibly quote that admission. What with my being a cultural snob as opposed to racist, I'd be terribly interested to know where this particular contention arises from.

Incidentally, "or" cannot be employed to start a sentence. Why not go back to school with Neo Art? The two of you seem to get along swimmingly...:)

http://www.gpuss.co.uk/english_usage/start_sentence_conjunction.htm

Forgive me for noticing the irony. TBC, if you're going to make the entirety of your posts be an attack on the typos or grammar of a poster, I truly recommend that you pause for a moment to prevent making a fool of yourself. OR perhaps you could simply stick to making arguments. Should we take this as admission that your arguments have run out so attacks on nonsensical things is all you have?

Meanwhile, the starting a sentence with a conjuction rule is absurd and not held to in literature, articles, papers, etc. Punctuation is used in writing to drive home a point. A period is full stop and employed for more reasons that just "I have nothing more to say in that sentence". It is occasionally used to demonstrate a point and, as such, a conjoined phrase simply loses the point, so we put it on its own. In English 101, they teach what you said, but people understand the nuances of English language learn that some rules can be bent and some can be broken. /English lecture

again, once something is proven demonstrably to be true, or at very least strongly supported by evidence, stating it as fact is not racism/sexism/what have you (although I suppose it COULD be, depending on motivation).
Then we are more or less on the same wavelength.

For what? Christ alive, I don't report Greater Trostia for slander.

Well, you could, but it would have to be for violation of a forum rule, not "slander," as that is a legal charge which I don't think you'll find any attorney would support in this case.

http://www.gpuss.co.uk/english_usage/start_sentence_conjunction.htm

Forgive me for noticing the irony. TBC, if you're going to make the entirety of your posts be an attack on the typos or grammar of a poster, I truly recommend that you pause for a moment to prevent making a fool of yourself. OR perhaps you could simply stick to making arguments. Should we take this as admission that your arguments have run out so attacks on nonsensical things is all you have?

Meanwhile, the starting a sentence with a conjuction rule is absurd and not held to in literature, articles, papers, etc. Punctuation is used in writing to drive home a point. A period is full stop and employed for more reasons that just "I have nothing more to say in that sentence". It is occasionally used to demonstrate a point and, as such, a conjoined phrase simply loses the point, so we put it on its own. In English 101, they teach what you said, but people understand the nuances of English language learn that some rules can be bent and some can be broken. /English lecture


You could, or, you could get less than four or five posters to respond to one post of mine.

Sorry for the inaccuracy anyway, however, I refuse to accept that grammatical observations qualify as a personal attack.

You could, or, you could get less than four or five posters to respond to one post of mine.

Sorry for the inaccuracy anyway, however, I refuse to accept that grammatical observations qualify as a personal attack.

They become personal attacks when you start picking on one poster to do it. (Neo Art, that is.)

Well, you could, but it would have to be for violation of a forum rule, not "slander," as that is a legal charge which I don't think you'll find any attorney would support in this case.

hmm.... given your refusal to give any evidence for an axiom upon which you make personal attacks, I daresay they would.

Eeeechh.... this idea just doesn't do it for me at all. It's like endorsing a quiet partnership between official police forces and organized crime. Having people take pride in their neighbourhood and encourage community policing is one thing, but working with gangs that primarily exist to run narcotics just gives me the willies.

thanks for the links (will be checking those out.)

I believe in the mid to late 80's a gang in New York took to patroling the subways. they assisted police and their presence actually help bring down crime in that area. They wern't vigelantes, but they were helping people.

other groups started forming baised on that idea in other cities.

damn, I can't remember the name of the gang tho...

Well, you could, but it would have to be for violation of a forum rule, not "slander," as that is a legal charge which I don't think you'll find any attorney would support in this case.

highly doubful indeed, as one is defamed through slander when the defamatory remarks are spoken, or otherwise vocalized.

In print it's libel.

thanks for the links (will be checking those out.)

I believe in the mid to late 80's a gang in New York took to patroling the subways. they assisted police and their presence actually help bring down crime in that area. They wern't vigelantes, but they were helping people.

other groups started forming baised on that idea in other cities.

damn, I can't remember the name of the gang tho...

I know what you're talking about... can't think of their name either. This particular 'gang' has been trying to get their foot in the door in Toronto for years, and has been particularly unpopular up here.

hmm.... given your refusal to give any evidence for an axiom upon which you make personal attacks, I daresay they would.

well first off, as I said, no lawyer would pursue a charge of slander, as the proper charge is libel, not slander.

Secondly, in a claim of defamation (libel or slander) opinions can not ever, in any circumstances, be considered defamation.

Third, in order to substantiate a claim of defamation, unless it is per se defamation, one must plead and prove specific monetary damages that have been suffered as a result of the defamatory act.

Fourth, for a claim of defamation to be substantiated, one must demonstrate that the alleged defamatory remarks were not merely mean and untrue, but of the character that would cause one to suffer severe hardship, that which causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, and generally ostracized as a result.

This, I fear, does not come close.

I know what you're talking about... can't think of their name either. This particular 'gang' has been trying to get their foot in the door in Toronto for years, and has been particularly unpopular up here.

this is going to be one of those... just when I'm falling asleep the answer will come to me... :D

You could, or, you could get less than four or five posters to respond to one post of mine.

Sorry for the inaccuracy anyway, however, I refuse to accept that grammatical observations qualify as a personal attack.

I didn't say "personal attack". Your attacks on their grammar do not, however, address the argument. It's the opposite really. You avoid the point and focus on grammar (not your own, of course) rather than making arguments.

If you'd like to be taken seriously in any fashion then you'd do well to focus on the arguments and stop making a fool of yourself. OR, as I said earlier, keep making it clear that you don't have an argument and have to resort to silly comments about people not being educated enough becuase they make mistakes very similar to your own mistakes. The choice is obviously yours but only one of them is actually going to carry your point.

hmm.... given your refusal to give any evidence for an axiom upon which you make personal attacks, I daresay they would.

No, they would likely know the definition and recognize that this doesn't fit. Slander is spoken, signed or gestured. Neo Art knew that. He knew that you wanted to use the word "libel", if you actually were educated on the subject. So, again, do you think you really want to make this an argument that rests on a comparison between your education and Neo Art's. I daresay that you're not faring well thus far.

Like I said, you're welcome to refocus the argument on *gasp* the topic. Would you like to do so yet or shall we continue showing just how badly this plays for you?

well first off, as I said, no lawyer would pursue a charge of slander, as the proper charge is libel, not slander.

Secondly, in a claim of defamation (libel or slander) opinions can not ever, in any circumstances, be considered defamation.

Third, in order to substantiate a claim of defamation, unless it is per se defamation, one must plead and prove specific monetary damages that have been suffered as a result of the defamatory act.

Fourth, for a claim of defamation to be substantiated, one must demonstrate that the alleged defamatory remarks were not merely mean and untrue, but of the character that would cause one to suffer severe hardship, that which causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, and generally ostracized as a result.

This, I fear, does not come close.

Well played. Those attacks on your education are just looking sillier by the moment, no? The fact that despite this bloodbath, TBC still hasn't refocused the argument back on point suggests that he expects a worse bloodbath on point. Unsurprisingly, that's exactly why he dragged this off-point in the first place.

Must suck to lose the argument no matter where you focus it, no?

Well played. Those attacks on your education are just looking sillier by the moment, no? The fact that despite this bloodbath, TBC still hasn't refocused the argument back on point suggests that he expects a worse bloodbath on point. Unsurprisingly, that's exactly why he dragged this off-point in the first place.

Must suck to lose the argument no matter where you focus it, no?

All I can saw is "ouch"

Well played BTW. :)

So, BY DEFINITION;), in order to be able to claim to not be racist, one must believe that all races are equal, in all regards, irrespective of the accepted scientific evidence that suggests otherwise. Another masterstroke I see....

First, that's not what he said. The scientific evidence speaks to traits, not choices. Is laziness a trait? Prove it. The difference is not subtle. That some races are taller than others is not racism unless you claim that differences in heights make you inferior. Calling a race lazy is clearly an attempt to assign inferiority as a trait. Second, I don't think I've seen you present any scientific evidence. So invoking the evidence really puts you in a pickle, don't you think?

You alsoe appear to have omitted to quote my criticism of you literary style, or lack thereof. Care to explain why?

Why do you keep on throwing out coffin nails and complaining when people use them? You might as well have said "why are focusing on the argument? Can't you see I'm trying to take the focus off an argument I can't win and by ignoring my attempts to derail the argument you're make me look bad?"

That would have been more honest. Wouldn't now be a great time to accept defeat and bow out gracefully?

Unemployed =/= lazy.

This has degenerated so badly, I almost hate doing this...

In an economy with 4% unemployment, there aren't many reasons for not having a job. I suspect that laziness starts to rank a lot higher as one of those reasons when the employment picture is good...In other words, employers are a lot less selective when there are fewer candidates for their jobs.

This has degenerated so badly, I almost hate doing this...

In an economy with 4% unemployment, there aren't many reasons for not having a job.

And comparing national unemployment rate does nothing for you. I think you'll find in places with very low unemployment, everyone is employed.

Try looking at places in the inner city. You know...places with unemployment considerably higher. It's the great american myth that if jobs aren't in one place that you can just pack up and go somewhere else.

This has degenerated so badly, I almost hate doing this...

In an economy with 4% unemployment, there aren't many reasons for not having a job. I suspect that laziness starts to rank a lot higher as one of those reasons when the employment picture is good...In other words, employers are a lot less selective when there are fewer candidates for their jobs.

Look, if I get fired tomorrow, I am thus unemployed, and the reasons for my firing have generally nothing to do with how much of the US population is unemployed.

What you seem to be doing is the bandwagon approach - everyone else has a job, so if you don't, there must be something wrong with you. But people have said this regardless of the specific unemployment rate, and it's never been true.

And yes, employers get more selective when there are more candidates for the jobs. That just means competition is up: If anything that means there are yet more reasons why one may not be employed, so boiling it all down to something simplistic like laziness - or, being black - is not appropriate.

And comparing national unemployment rate does nothing for you. I think you'll find in places with very low unemployment, everyone is employed.

Try looking at places in the inner city. You know...places with unemployment considerably higher. It's the great american myth that if jobs aren't in one place that you can just pack up and go somewhere else.

for a myth, it's strikenly real. I had several friends move because they couldn't find jobs here.

also there's the question of "the job is there, but are you willing to do that job."

for a myth, it's strikenly real. I had several friends move because they couldn't find jobs here.

and where'd they get the money to move, and how far did they move?
also there's the question of "the job is there, but are you willing to do that job."

So we're going back to the "oh they're just lazy" line?

and where'd they get the money to move, and how far did they move?two of em sold their homes. moved from Hawaii to Vegas.

another saved up and moved to New York. (yes, the story of eating Mac and Cheese for dinner, no Cable, minimal spending...)

a third is Retired from Military, so he obtained a loan and relocated, cost was reduced because of his Military Service.

So we're going back to the "oh they're just lazy" line?did I say that?

one of my friends couldn't find a job because she was in the technical field. would not look at Retail work, even tho there were alot of openings. so for her, it's "there were jobs there, but she didn't want to do the work." and no, she was not lazy. :rolleyes:

I know what you're talking about... can't think of their name either. This particular 'gang' has been trying to get their foot in the door in Toronto for years, and has been particularly unpopular up here.

come on guys.

Hell's angels!!!

And comparing national unemployment rate does nothing for you. I think you'll find in places with very low unemployment, everyone is employed.

Try looking at places in the inner city. You know...places with unemployment considerably higher. It's the great american myth that if jobs aren't in one place that you can just pack up and go somewhere else.

I don't accept that people won't migrate towards areas with better employment. The Atlanta metropolitan area is growing faster than it ever has and mainly because the jobs are here. SoCal is losing residents. New York, Massachusetts and some of the other Northern states are losing residents, too. Migration patterns are almost always toward more, or better employment.

Will LaKischa or Lamont relocate? I don't know...It's a tough thing to do on your own. I wouldn't mind seeing my taxes support some relocation assistance for chronically unemployed people. Since no good deed ever goes unpunished, I'm sure this would be greeted by some sort of wild claim of genocide or whatever.

*snip* Did your nation get deleted or something?

come on guys.

Hell's angels!!!

... don't think so...

I kinda think "Knights" were in the name... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

two of em sold their homes. moved from Hawaii to Vegas.

another saved up and moved to New York. (yes, the story of eating Mac and Cheese for dinner, no Cable, minimal spending...)

a third is Retired from Military, so he obtained a loan and relocated, cost was reduced because of his Military Service.

Of the 4 you described, two had a source of cash, and one had a particular opportunity that allowed him to obtain it.

I also wonder through what source of money the other one had in order to save up.

It would appear in each example everyone either had:

1) some source of income
2) some method of deriving money
3) some method of securing a loan

Did your nation get deleted or something?

or something..

I don't accept that people won't migrate towards areas with better employment. The Atlanta metropolitan area is growing faster than it ever has and mainly because the jobs are here. SoCal is losing residents. New York, Massachusetts and some of the other Northern states are losing residents, too. Migration patterns are almost always toward more, or better employment.

Will LaKischa or Lamont relocate? I don't know...It's a tough thing to do on your own. I wouldn't mind seeing my taxes support some relocation assistance for chronically unemployed people. Since no good deed ever goes unpunished, I'm sure this would be greeted by some sort of wild claim of genocide or whatever.

Amusing, but inaccurate. I relocated for a job, does that mean everyone can? You're using statistics to apply a correllation, but you've not demonstrated that they apply. Who is moving? How are they moving? Why can they afford to move? Who is not moving? Why aren't they moving? Can they afford to move?

You've not done a lick of work here and you state you conclusion like it's fact.

And comparing national unemployment rate does nothing for you. I think you'll find in places with very low unemployment, everyone is employed.

Try looking at places in the inner city. You know...places with unemployment considerably higher. It's the great american myth that if jobs aren't in one place that you can just pack up and go somewhere else.

People don't tend to realize this but black people tend to be centered more around cities, so the status of urban areas is much better statistic to apply to them than to use the statistics that apply to all areas of the US.

North Dakota has a black population of less than 1% even with recent growth. How does the status of North Dakota really weigh into the status of the black population of America?

Montana has a half of a percent.

Utah has one percent.

And the list goes on. It's almost useless to discuss unemployment for black people in a way that includes so many areas that have virtually no effect on black people.

And you could say they could move there, but have you ever seen what happens to the first black family in a town that's been white for half a millenia? They don't tend to greet them with milk a cookies and a key to their daughters' rooms.

What you seem to be doing is the bandwagon approach - everyone else has a job, so if you don't, there must be something wrong with you. But people have said this regardless of the specific unemployment rate, and it's never been true.

The US is currently operating at its natural rate of unemployment. That means that there are only two possible reasons for not having a job if you desire one. The first is frictional (ie, you are in between jobs and should find another one shortly) and the second is structural (you have insufficient skills to acquire a job and need re-education). There is absolutely no reason for someone who is unemployed to not find a job within a few months, given that the unemployment rate is 4%.

or something..

Until she addressed you, I didn't realize it was you. That would explain the informative post on the law and it makes TBC's posts much funnier.

Glad to see you're back. Obviously, when I commented in moderation, your deletion was not my intent nor what I expected. I was very disappointed to see the result.

two of em sold their homes. moved from Hawaii to Vegas.

another saved up and moved to New York. (yes, the story of eating Mac and Cheese for dinner, no Cable, minimal spending...)

a third is Retired from Military, so he obtained a loan and relocated, cost was reduced because of his Military Service.

did I say that?

one of my friends couldn't find a job because she was in the technical field. would not look at Retail work, even tho there were alot of openings. so for her, it's "there were jobs there, but she didn't want to do the work." and no, she was not lazy. :rolleyes:


They had houses to sell and support of the government. You realize this isn't the norm, no?

And what do you propose a family that has no money, no job and is already living on mac and cheese and doesn't have cable do?

Of the 4 you described, two had a source of cash, and one had a particular opportunity that allowed him to obtain it.

I also wonder through what source of money the other one had in order to save up.

It would appear in each example everyone either had:

1) some source of income
2) some method of deriving money
3) some method of securing a loan
The person you are alluding to had one part-time job. but you are right, he had friends who were willing to help him out as much as they could. Movie nights and other things we would do that requires little to no money being spent.

Guess those others don't have friends or family, or even access to a part time job of flipping burgers or janatorial work...

EDIT: and no Neo, still not calling any group "lazy"

this is going to be one of those... just when I'm falling asleep the answer will come to me... :D

Gaurdian Angels!

http://www.cynicsunlimited.com/2006/01/23/jane-creba-one-month-later/

Angels Descended…

Another American-born crime solution arrived in the form of the Guardian Angels, who attempted to set up shop in Toronto earlier this month. During 1979, former night manager Curtis Silwa had become so fed up with the escalating crime in New York that he founded the Angels – an unarmed, citizen-based, beret-clad group that patrols some of the big apple’s most dangerous streets to report wrongdoing. Despite billing themselves as extra eyes and ears for the police, New York officials were initially cool to the idea of a “vigilante” group doing police work. However the Angels proved useful to the NYPD and have since established chapters all over the world …

… except Toronto, that is. The Guardian Angels are trying to set up a Toronto chapter for the third time since the 80’s and City Hall’s response has been less than enthusiastic. Chief Blair denied ever being contacted by Silwa for a meeting, while David Miller dismissed outright the need for any citizen’s based group in Toronto:

“Toronto is much safer than Boston and Chicago … We need to remember what works here. Learn what we can from others, but use what works here and make it much more effective”
-David Miller on the Guardian Angels (January 2006)

The Guardian Angels founder disagreed:

“These gangs are going to get more fierce, more deadly and soon they’ll turn into Uzi-toting dope-sucking psychopathic killing machines, unless more creative approaches are used, and it has to start now”
-Curtis Silwa on the future of Toronto Gangs (January 2006)

Citizens were divided the presence of Silwa’s group. While some denounced the Guardian Angels as vigilantes that could exacerbate the gang mentality behind much of the city’s violence, others were willing to try a new technique that has been cited in reducing crime throughout the U.S. Curtis Silwa eventually left the country (on the orders of Immigration Canada) but vowed he’d be back to set up a chapter with the two dozen Torontonians who pledged to join the group.

[QUOTE=Mikesburg;12640812]Gaurdian Angels!

That's it.

hell's angels:rolleyes: i was close though

Those polls and surveys in the beginning are very skewed and you should take them with a heavy pinch of salt. The world is not as simple as white vs black. Yes many less black people have jobs, are in positions of power, etc..

However it is not truely skin color either that is the problem, it is more culture. Lets look at Armenian, ex-Yugoslavian, Slavic (including Russia) immigrants. They will also be heavily discriminated against despite having lily white skin due to their eastern culture and not being of western-european origin.
Or let's look at Mexicans; 15% of all mexicans are 100% european ancestry with an additional 60-75% of mixed european/Amerindian ancestry (only 11% of the mexican population is 100% Amerindian, and about 30% who have more Amerindian than white blood in them). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico#Ethnography

This means that by probability 3/4 mexicans you meet will have more european blood in them than amerindian, constituting them logically as white. However do we wish to speak of the employment, positions of power of these whites?

To make the poll fair we should. True many of these mexicans are not west european descendant and from southern europe. However white =/= Western europe (ala England, France, Germany, Ireland, etc..).


----80% of Latin America is composed of white population (counting mixed with more white than amerindian blood in them), which is in turn more than 90% composed of the top five groups of immigrants, which were: Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Germans and, to a much smaller extent, Irish, Poles, Russians, Welsh, Ukrainians, French, Jews, etc.


To be fair in such surveys. Latinos should be counted under white in the job ranking if one wishes to be fair about it. Otherwise one has to make it Caucasian vs White Hispanic vs Black. However that doesn't make too much sense either.
I think I can end this with, after taking a course in world demographics I have come to the conclusion that the concept of race is ridicolously overcomplex and 99% of the people manage to confuse themselves on terms when debating it long enough. Scientist see latin American population as mostly white and european in genetics and ancestry. Soceity (North American) wishes to seperate and not call them white due to prejudice and lord knows how many other reasons. It is simply one of those things where you either side with science or soceity.

- Hope I didn't take it too off-topic.

The person you are alluding to had one part-time job. but you are right, he had friends who were willing to help him out as much as they could. Movie nights and other things we would do that requires little to no money being spent.

Guess those others don't have friends or family, or even access to a part time job of flipping burgers or janatorial work...

Sometimes their friends and families are in the same boat. In my parents' case, they both had jobs, but their debt greatly exceeded their income and always would. They had no equity in the house we lived and we were already growing as much of our own food as we could get away with in an urban area. No perks like cable or dessert or shoes without holes in them. There were better jobs in some other areas of the country but we couldn't afford to move at all.

You oversimplify this problem and you seem to be talking about people who aren't so much impovershed as they are just starting out. There is a not so subtle difference.

African American men are...nearly seven times as likely to suffer from AIDS.


Damn whities keeping the black man down with aids.

Until she addressed you, I didn't realize it was you. That would explain the informative post on the law and it makes TBC's posts much funnier.

Glad to see you're back. Obviously, when I commented in moderation, your deletion was not my intent nor what I expected. I was very disappointed to see the result.

Looks like I missed something...interesting.

They had houses to sell and support of the government. You realize this isn't the norm, no?

And what do you propose a family that has no money, no job and is already living on mac and cheese and doesn't have cable do?

there are possiblities.

no part time job that the parents can do? including flipping burgers? they live somewhere, if they have no income, they're not paying rent so they must own their place. they must have skills they can market. are the kids old enough to work part time?

so what do you think they should do. wait till someone hands them a check and a job? sit back and bemoan and blame discrimination? oh hell no.

Did I say it would be easy? no.
Did I say it won't take planning and dicipline? no
Do they have access to groups that can help? YMCA, Temp Agencies, and other groups out there who can assist with finding jobs and support.

Gaurdian Angels!

That's it.

hell's angels:rolleyes: i was close though

I assumed you were joking on the Hell's Angels...

I assumed you were joking on the Hell's Angels...

:( no. I know little about gangs in the US (why would I?)

i just remembered there was angel in the name. hell's angels came to mind.

Sometimes their friends and families are in the same boat. In my parents' case, they both had jobs, but their debt greatly exceeded their income and always would. They had no equity in the house we lived and we were already growing as much of our own food as we could get away with in an urban area. No perks like cable or dessert or shoes without holes in them. There were better jobs in some other areas of the country but we couldn't afford to move at all. *shrugs* there are things I would've done, but then there are things I can live without.

You oversimplify this problem and you seem to be talking about people who aren't so much impovershed as they are just starting out. There is a not so subtle difference.the problem is that people are so busy trying to push the blame on others or call each other racisist (in this thread) and not sit down and try to solve the problems.

you look at the big image and think "too big nothing can be done." and berate anyone who tries to do things about it. Your parents were in Debt. what kind of Debt? Credit cards? Stock market crash? Lawsuits? what caused their debt? (Do not answer if you don't want to, finances are personal IMHO, and details are really not needed or sought) I'm in debt to my ears and I'm constantly looking for solutions and trying things out. I've made it known that the first chance I get, I'm outta Hawaii and off to the land of Lost Wages. and that is a goal I am working at. if that means I'll have to pick up a second, third or forth job, then I will (I've worked 3 jobs while going to school before.) each credit card I pay off, I cut up so I don't dig myself back into that hole. each loan I pay off I don't borrow again. Slow going, but at least it's going.

No one said moving was easy. but if the other option is to stay in an area that offers no opportunity to grow and advance, then what's your solution?


Gaurdian Angels!

http://www.cynicsunlimited.com/2006/01/23/jane-creba-one-month-later/That's them!

So What? Not that there is anything wrong with African-Americans, not that they aren't often smarter then whites, but on a grand scale alot of them do NOT want to find jobs.

So you're saying blacks are lazy and you sit here calling US racist?


My only point is that unemployed blacks are not to due to racism, and after reviewing what I said above, you can see that I'm not racist.

The ones put at the beggining of this thread. Fewer blacks have jobs.

I'm not inclined to wade into all of the back-and-forth over TPE obviously racist viewpoint. I don't have time to address it now anyway.

I wish to point out, however, that TPE and his defenders have made a basic glaring error in their thinking.

TPE takes evidence that blacks are disproportionately unemployed and takes that as evidence that blacks are disproportionately lazy.

This is flawed in many ways.

TPE offers no evidence that unemployment is due to laziness, rather than other factors which include the legacy of past discrimination and current discrimination in employment. There is no basis for inferring laziness from unemployment.

To the contrary, the government unemployment statistics only count you as unemployed if you are "jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work." If you are not actively seeking work, you are considered out of the workforce link (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm)

Of course, TPE's simplistic, racist explanation for unemployment statistics doesn't address all of the other evidence that I have posted regarding black disadvantage and active discrimination (such as the audit studies).

Originally Posted by United Law View Post
Oh, no, the evil white man is putting the black brothers down! BLACK POWER!

[/stupid Black Panther crap]

They aren't claiming that black people still aren't out of the rut of poverty. That's going to take a long time. People are claiming that a minorities have their freedom of speech better than white people do.

Minorities can generally say stuff that white people aren't allowed to. Minorites can generally say jokes whites are allowed to.
And blacks can say "Black power!" but the connotation when whites say "White power!"?

Tell me that isn't fair.



how, precisely, do you mean "not allowed"?

Exactly. You folks who parrot this, 'Political correctness! Woe is me! Why can't I say ****** ****** ******!' are jackasses and your animus towards black people is glaringly obvious.

Name one mainstream black American who goes around saying black power. I promise you, they wouldn't be mainstream very much longer if they did.

EDIT: I should add, I do think there is a problem fundamental to all Cat-Tribe's numbers: lack of investment. I think black Americans are heavily to blame for the shortfall (as others have implied in crude terms, successful black Americans are quite successful indeed, and there are proportionally more moneyed black Americans -- black millionaires -- than moneyed white or Asian Americans. But, on balance, I think the responsibility lies with government.

Until she addressed you, I didn't realize it was you. That would explain the informative post on the law and it makes TBC's posts much funnier.

Glad to see you're back. Obviously, when I commented in moderation, your deletion was not my intent nor what I expected. I was very disappointed to see the result.

hah, that's alright, I'll admit to perhaps being a tad excessive ;) Either way I'm really not terribly bothered.

I'm not inclined to wade into all of the back-and-forth over TPE obviously racist viewpoint. I don't have time to address it now anyway.

I wish to point out, however, that TPE and his defenders have made a basic glaring error in their thinking.

TPE takes evidence that blacks are disproportionately unemployed and takes that as evidence that blacks are disproportionately lazy.

This is flawed in many ways.

TPE offers no evidence that unemployment is due to laziness, rather than other factors which include the legacy of past discrimination and current discrimination in employment. There is no basis for inferring laziness from unemployment.

To the contrary, the government unemployment statistics only count you as unemployed if you are "jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work." If you are not actively seeking work, you are considered out of the workforce link (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm)

Of course, TPE's simplistic, racist explanation for unemployment statistics doesn't address all of the other evidence that I have posted regarding black disadvantage and active discrimination (such as the audit studies).

If what you say is true about goverment classification of unemployment, then I apologize and retract my staments about a higher laziness rate.

I don't accept that people won't migrate towards areas with better employment. The Atlanta metropolitan area is growing faster than it ever has and mainly because the jobs are here.

And yet, the last time I was looking for a job in Atlanta - looking at jobs like retail, waiting tables, even cleaning up after animals - it took me almost a month to find one - and I'm a middle class white chick with a bachelor's degree and my own car (so I could get to wherever the jobs were).

Damn whities keeping the black man down with aids.

Don't know the difference between discrimination and disadvantaged, do you?

there are possiblities.

no part time job that the parents can do? including flipping burgers? they live somewhere, if they have no income, they're not paying rent so they must own their place. they must have skills they can market. are the kids old enough to work part time?

so what do you think they should do. wait till someone hands them a check and a job? sit back and bemoan and blame discrimination? oh hell no.

Did I say it would be easy? no.
Did I say it won't take planning and dicipline? no
Do they have access to groups that can help? YMCA, Temp Agencies, and other groups out there who can assist with finding jobs and support.

You're missing the point. Can they do something to survive until things get better? Often times, yes. You're suggesting they could "save money" which is not the same as surviving. Most people in this kind of a situation are barely scraping by taking whetever money they can get whatever way they can get it.

When you talk about what people can do, you suggest with your statements that people always have a choice. They often don't. There are people running around that are getting by on incomes that are in the 20K range for the whole family with several children below 10. I don't know how you'd expect a family like that to come up with more money.

I would agree that someone like me can follow the work even if I was barely getting by because I'm single, I could skip meals, I'm healthy so I can do without insurance, I could live in a car or camp, etc. I have options. Families with low incomes, no valuable skills (or at least no jobs for those skills in that geographical area) and too much to risk a move do not.

*shrugs* there are things I would've done, but then there are things I can live without.

What would you suggest my family should have lived without? School? The medical attention my sister needed to survive? The small amount of food we had to eat. We used about half our yard for growing food. I started working to make money as soon as I was old enough to do so. So did my brother. Both my parents were professionals and worked so much I barely saw them. They basically came home to sleep.

So what things would you have done? What would you have lived without?

I find it amusing that you make such an absurd statement without the information it would take to make such a statement true. Basically, your statement is ignorant.

Be careful, your statement isn't about a statistical group but about an individual family and this can only come from thinking you know something you don't.

Looks like I missed something...interesting.

Nah, not really. Art was the willing victim of a troll.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=526357

You're missing the point. Can they do something to survive until things get better? Often times, yes. You're suggesting they could "save money" which is not the same as surviving. Most people in this kind of a situation are barely scraping by taking whetever money they can get whatever way they can get it. actually, you missed my point. situations like this doesn't just come from one situation. in other words it's not JUST discrimination, It's not JUST luck, It's not just Chance. Often times, it's a combination of everything. I've enver argued that Discrimination doesn't exsist, I've also never argued that the plight suffered by anyone is ONLY due to discrimination either.

as for the Saving money concept. one must start by reducing the spending. if that means you first have to pay off your debt to do so, then so be it. but remember, you mentioned Debt. something that can be removed (not easily but it can be removed) and that will free up money. not easy, not quick, but I never said anything about quick and easy.

When you talk about what people can do, you suggest with your statements that people always have a choice. They often don't. There are people running around that are getting by on incomes that are in the 20K range for the whole family with several children below 10. I don't know how you'd expect a family like that to come up with more money. there is always a choice. we may not see it, and each situation and person/family will not have the same choices but there are always choices. the more desperate the situation becomes, the harder it is to see the choices.

and the choices are not universal, what works for one may not work for others, just like what won't work for one will work for others (the point I popped in on.)

to lay a blanket statement like "it's a myth that people can move to where the jobs are" is the same as you are accusing me of saying "everyone can move to where the jobs are." I didn't say that, I said it is possible and has happened.

I would agree that someone like me can follow the work even if I was barely getting by because I'm single, I could skip meals, I'm healthy so I can do without insurance, I could live in a car or camp, etc. I have options. Families with low incomes, no valuable skills (or at least no jobs for those skills in that geographical area) and too much to risk a move do not.they have different choices because their situation is different. but they also have choices open to them that are not open to us single people. the hard part is finding those choices and choosing the best one.

What would you suggest my family should have lived without? School? The medical attention my sister needed to survive? The small amount of food we had to eat. We used about half our yard for growing food. I started working to make money as soon as I was old enough to do so. So did my brother. Both my parents were professionals and worked so much I barely saw them. They basically came home to sleep.

So what things would you have done? What would you have lived without?

I find it amusing that you make such an absurd statement without the information it would take to make such a statement true. Basically, your statement is ignorant.nice how slowly the situation changes with each post. you say I am ignorant because I don't have the information, but realize i'm working with information YOU are supplying. so if I am lacking information on your situation, it's because you are not supplying it. So... think about your family's situation. think about the options.

now, Did you and your family actually sit down to see what can be done to improve your situation? Examine your options and even research new options you can take, even if it means filing for bankruptcy or calling a financial institution for planning assistance.

Be careful, your statement isn't about a statistical group but about an individual family and this can only come from thinking you know something you don't. I never focused on any group or family... well outside a broad group like those in poverty... that's what you and Neo Art seem to be doing (as well as others who seemed to only concentrate on one ethnicity.) but then I also never said that situations are so hopeless that nothing can be done like it seems you are trying to illustrate.

Nah, not really. Art was the willing victim of a troll.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=526357

Well, you were quite thorough in your investigation...as usual. But thanks for the link...I wasn't aware of the new forum mod until now!

Nah, not really. Art was the willing victim of a troll.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=526357

wow... didn't realise that happened... :(

Well, you were quite thorough in your investigation...as usual. But thanks for the link...I wasn't aware of the new forum mod until now!

The unfortunate part was I was intending to encourage him to recognize he was crossing the line with the troll. I wanted him to stop before it got worse, but I guess it had already gone on too long. There was a lot of mod action from that thread. I hope that everyone involved, save perhaps the troll, comes back. I know people find many of those guys frustrating but I actually greatly prefer the differences of opinion provided everyone remembers that we're attacking arguments not people.

The unfortunate part was I was intending to encourage him to recognize he was crossing the line with the troll. I wanted him to stop before it got worse, but I guess it had already gone on too long.
Mmmhmmm.

Still hoping to get promoted, hmmm? :P

Black folks should start putting their hard earned money in their communities like white folks.

The US is currently operating at its natural rate of unemployment. That means that there are only two possible reasons for not having a job if you desire one. The first is frictional (ie, you are in between jobs and should find another one shortly) and the second is structural (you have insufficient skills to acquire a job and need re-education). There is absolutely no reason for someone who is unemployed to not find a job within a few months, given that the unemployment rate is 4%.

Those are two economic *classifications* of unemployment, those are not *reasons* for being unemployed.

And those aren't even the only two types of unemployment. There are cyclical, frictional, structural, classical. And Marxian, if you believe that tripe.

Nice try, come again.

actually, you missed my point. situations like this doesn't just come from one situation. in other words it's not JUST discrimination, It's not JUST luck, It's not just Chance. Often times, it's a combination of everything. I've enver argued that Discrimination doesn't exsist, I've also never argued that the plight suffered by anyone is ONLY due to discrimination either.

When did I mention discrimination? We were discussing whether people who were starving for work or better work could just up and move and I was showing you that a blanket statement that they can is provably wrong. Even your examples were very limited cases.



as for the Saving money concept. one must start by reducing the spending. if that means you first have to pay off your debt to do so, then so be it. but remember, you mentioned Debt. something that can be removed (not easily but it can be removed) and that will free up money. not easy, not quick, but I never said anything about quick and easy.

Again, you make assumptions. You can't save money if your debt increases faster than your income. They aren't valid assumptions. You're starting with the assumption that people have a positive income (an income that can create equity or move in that direction) and go from there. Most of the people we are discussing do not.



there is always a choice. we may not see it, and each situation and person/family will not have the same choices but there are always choices. the more desperate the situation becomes, the harder it is to see the choices.

Again, you make a provably false blanket statement. Let's go back to my family. My sister had an ailment that was causing her to stop breathing. No one could figure out what it was and at some point a doctor said that he thought it was mental. The insurance company jumped all over that and claimed she needed psychological attention. The problem is that if we stop using addressing the problem physically she dies. The insurance is no longer paying and our bills are increasing way too quickly to keep up with. The only reason she's getting any attention at this point, since we can't pay is because my mother works for the hospital.

Every once in a while over the course of the next year some hot shot thinks he has the answer and my sister is called to some hospital or another in the Chicago area and they fail. Until one doesn't. After about a year suddenly a doctor figures it out and fixes her right up. Now the insurance companies are claiming it's the fault of the doctors and they are responsible for not fixing her. We're claiming it was clearly physical and ask the insurance company to pay the bills.

No one does. And we remain desperately poor for about six more years before FINALLY the entire issue gets cleared up between the insurance companies and the hospitals in some form of settlement. If not for that lucky turn of events we'd still be dirt poor today.

Now how do you a propose a family that is going thousands of dollars in debt by the day caused by an unavoidable expense SAVES money? Magic beans?

Your simplistic little view might seem logical to you, but it makes a number of assumptions and each of them is ignorant of reality.


and the choices are not universal, what works for one may not work for others, just like what won't work for one will work for others (the point I popped in on.)

to lay a blanket statement like "it's a myth that people can move to where the jobs are" is the same as you are accusing me of saying "everyone can move to where the jobs are." I didn't say that, I said it is possible and has happened.

You said it's ALWAYS possible. It's not. You are making a blankat statement and it's false and ignorant.


they have different choices because their situation is different. but they also have choices open to them that are not open to us single people. the hard part is finding those choices and choosing the best one.

And you assume they haven't made the best choices. This is what makes your statements ignorant. Because absent evidence you make this claim. I challenge you to support it.


nice how slowly the situation changes with each post. you say I am ignorant because I don't have the information, but realize i'm working with information YOU are supplying. so if I am lacking information on your situation, it's because you are not supplying it. So... think about your family's situation. think about the options.

That's the point. You only have the information I supplied which makes you too ignorant to make the assumptions you made. You said you would have done things differently. This can't help but be an ignroant assumption given the information I provided. What exactly would you have done differently? If you can't answer that question based on the information you received BEFORE this post then your claim was ignorant. But, hey, if you don't mind making ignorant claims then keep on charging.


now, Did you and your family actually sit down to see what can be done to improve your situation? Examine your options and even research new options you can take, even if it means filing for bankruptcy or calling a financial institution for planning assistance.

Oh, you mean there's information you don't have that would be useful to you in your judgement? Hmmmm... then wouldn't that make your assumption ignorant? Glad we agree.

Meanwhile, of course they did. My parents consulted lawyers, banks, insurance companies, politicians. So did every friend we had. Unfortunately porr people don't generally have a lot of powerful contacts. But, hey, go ahead and assume my parents didn't. That's not an ignorant assumption, now, is it?



I never focused on any group or family... well outside a broad group like those in poverty... that's what you and Neo Art seem to be doing (as well as others who seemed to only concentrate on one ethnicity.) but then I also never said that situations are so hopeless that nothing can be done like it seems you are trying to illustrate.

You were replying to an exmple and you said you'd have handled it differently, but given the limited information you'd received your assumption can ONLY be ignorant. It's clear you want very badly for your blanket statement to be true and you're willing to make up evidence to support it, but that really doesn't make a compelling argument.

Um, which ethnicity am I concentrating on? You do realize that my family is not black, no?

Mmmhmmm.

Still hoping to get promoted, hmmm? :P

Ha. Yes, because I don't have enough unpaid jobs.

I'm about as likely to become a mod as you are. I like clean forums. I like debate. It's to my benefit to encourage people to avoid falling for trolls.

Again, you make a provably false blanket statement. Let's go back to my family. My sister had an ailment that was causing her to stop breathing. No one could figure out what it was and at some point a doctor said that he thought it was mental. The insurance company jumped all over that and claimed she needed psychological attention. The problem is that if we stop using addressing the problem physically she dies. The insurance is no longer paying and our bills are increasing way too quickly to keep up with. The only reason she's getting any attention at this point, since we can't pay is because my mother works for the hospital.

Every once in a while over the course of the next year some hot shot thinks he has the answer and my sister is called to some hospital or another in the Chicago area and they fail. Until one doesn't. After about a year suddenly a doctor figures it out and fixes her right up. Now the insurance companies are claiming it's the fault of the doctors and they are responsible for not fixing her. We're claiming it was clearly physical and ask the insurance company to pay the bills.

No one does. And we remain desperately poor for about six more years before FINALLY the entire issue gets cleared up between the insurance companies and the hospitals in some form of settlement. If not for that lucky turn of events we'd still be dirt poor today.

I think a lot of people - myself included - tend to underestimate the type of debt an illness or death in the family can get someone into. If you've never been through it, I suppose, it doesn't seem like it would be all that much - but the bills can really be staggering. My husband's family is middle class - probably upper middle class - and their finances were pretty much wiped out when his grandmother became very ill and then died. My mother-in-law, who would probably rather be caught dead than fail to pay a bill, was suddenly struggling to even get the basic bills out the door. She did end up missing the credit card bill that had been used to pay for my husband's tuition, and that alone - that ~$3000 debt, was a financial nightmare that ended up coming to bite us in the butt five years later when we were trying to buy a house. And that measly $3000 was nothing at all compared to the bills associated with his grandmother's illness and death.

When did I mention discrimination? We were discussing whether people who were starving for work or better work could just up and move and I was showing you that a blanket statement that they can is provably wrong. Even your examples were very limited cases.really, can you show stats that prove moving isn't an option?

people do have the option to move. BUT it's an option. it may not be the best one, but it's still an option.

not like your blanket statement that moving ISN'T an option.

you accuse me of making a blanket statement yet let other blanket statements slide right on by... nice Jocabia.

Again, you make assumptions. You can't save money if your debt increases faster than your income. They aren't valid assumptions. You're starting with the assumption that people have a positive income (an income that can create equity or move in that direction) and go from there. Most of the people we are discussing do not.

Again, you make a provably false blanket statement. Let's go back to my family. My sister had an ailment that was causing her to stop breathing. No one could figure out what it was and at some point a doctor said that he thought it was mental. The insurance company jumped all over that and claimed she needed psychological attention. The problem is that if we stop using addressing the problem physically she dies. The insurance is no longer paying and our bills are increasing way too quickly to keep up with. The only reason she's getting any attention at this point, since we can't pay is because my mother works for the hospital.

Every once in a while over the course of the next year some hot shot thinks he has the answer and my sister is called to some hospital or another in the Chicago area and they fail. Until one doesn't. After about a year suddenly a doctor figures it out and fixes her right up. Now the insurance companies are claiming it's the fault of the doctors and they are responsible for not fixing her. We're claiming it was clearly physical and ask the insurance company to pay the bills.

No one does. And we remain desperately poor for about six more years before FINALLY the entire issue gets cleared up between the insurance companies and the hospitals in some form of settlement. If not for that lucky turn of events we'd still be dirt poor today.

Now how do you a propose a family that is going thousands of dollars in debt by the day caused by an unavoidable expense SAVES money? Magic beans?

Your simplistic little view might seem logical to you, but it makes a number of assumptions and each of them is ignorant of reality.and your pessimestic veiw of reality blinded you to several options.

Granted Hindsight is 20/20... but have you tried...

when the argument between insurance and doctors stagnated. get the media involved. Get public opinion on your side. most news stations would love a "human interest" story.

try to get some fundraiser going... some fundraisers can be applied to specific causes like paying medical bills. we have several places here that will do such things, maybe there are some in your area as well.

heck, if you know others that grow their own veggies... setting up a "Neighborhood farmer's market" may bring in some extra cash, espeically if for a cause like your sister's.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad your sister is doing ok. (while I was reading this, I was thinking to ask you for the symtoms so I can pester the Docs here for their advice/opinions.)

and as I said, Hindsight is 20/20.


You said it's ALWAYS possible. It's not. You are making a blankat statement and it's false and ignorant.no, I said it's always an OPTION. and I don't see you harping on the person who says that it's a myth. another blanket statement that is false and ignorant.

And you assume they haven't made the best choices. This is what makes your statements ignorant. Because absent evidence you make this claim. I challenge you to support it. You're assuming that. I just said it's hard to choose the best options. seeing that you are releasing conditions and terms in drips and trickles, that changes the options and which are the best. I never said they didn't make the best choices. I just said it was hard. so the assumption is yours since you hold all the information.

That's the point. You only have the information I supplied which makes you too ignorant to make the assumptions you made. You said you would have done things differently. This can't help but be an ignroant assumption given the information I provided. What exactly would you have done differently? If you can't answer that question based on the information you received BEFORE this post then your claim was ignorant. But, hey, if you don't mind making ignorant claims then keep on charging.oh, so the fault goes on the person recieving the infromation and the person withholding information is blameless? Gotcha.

Oh, you mean there's information you don't have that would be useful to you in your judgement? Hmmmm... then wouldn't that make your assumption ignorant? Glad we agree.it could, and it also means that you are willing and able to withhold information to further your position. which puts anything you post at great suspect. I wonder what else you're withholding from your family example? hmmm....

Meanwhile, of course they did. My parents consulted lawyers, banks, insurance companies, politicians. So did every friend we had. Unfortunately poor people don't generally have a lot of powerful contacts. But, hey, go ahead and assume my parents didn't. That's not an ignorant assumption, now, is it? here we go, more information that was withheld. have you tried Media sources? the news and radio stations here would've put your story out and helped with getting a response and even financial help... would your local stations do that?

You were replying to an exmple and you said you'd have handled it differently, but given the limited information you'd received your assumption can ONLY be ignorant. It's clear you want very badly for your blanket statement to be true and you're willing to make up evidence to support it, but that really doesn't make a compelling argument.HERE WE GO! an admission to willingly witholding information to further his position. yep. when you stack the deck and cheat, you will win. and you haven't disproved my "blanket statement" that moving is an option.

Um, which ethnicity am I concentrating on? You do realize that my family is not black, no?not you, but others on this thread. just making sure to anyone popping in that I am not focusing on any one ethinicity.

I think a lot of people - myself included - tend to underestimate the type of debt an illness or death in the family can get someone into. If you've never been through it, I suppose, it doesn't seem like it would be all that much - but the bills can really be staggering. My husband's family is middle class - probably upper middle class - and their finances were pretty much wiped out when his grandmother became very ill and then died. My mother-in-law, who would probably rather be caught dead than fail to pay a bill, was suddenly struggling to even get the basic bills out the door. She did end up missing the credit card bill that had been used to pay for my husband's tuition, and that alone - that ~$3000 debt, was a financial nightmare that ended up coming to bite us in the butt five years later when we were trying to buy a house. And that measly $3000 was nothing at all compared to the bills associated with his grandmother's illness and death.


Yes, exactly. People make assumptions that it's always some major mistake by people or completely within their control. When you have money you can prepare for every possible thing you might encounter. I mean, I'm not invulnerable, but I've got enough money that I have an enormous buffer that most people simply can't afford. So people balance what they can affor and then when some unavoidable expense comes up, they are suddenly financially ruined and cannot recover until whatever caused them to be ruined goes away.

What happens to that guy that get an extra part time job when his uninsured wife dies and now he has to play father, mother and wage earner? Or that mother whose husband runs off? Or that family his daughter is diagnosed with lukemia and insurance doesn't cover enough of the bills? Or that family who lives in a town where the only reasonable source of income shuts down and that family and everyone they know is suddenly ruined? Or that family who missed a car insurance payment and gets in an accident?

There are a million unexpected events that happen in life that put us in a position that we just have to tread water and try not to drown and getting back in the boat just isn't an option. To pretend this doesn't happen is ignorant of the facts.

Ha. Yes, because I don't have enough unpaid jobs.

I'm about as likely to become a mod as you are. I like clean forums. I like debate. It's to my benefit to encourage people to avoid falling for trolls.
I posted gay porn.

I think you have a leg up on me when it comes to Mod selection :D

This thread is crazy...I need time to go back through it...argh!

Ha. Yes, because I don't have enough unpaid jobs.

I'm about as likely to become a mod as you are. I like clean forums. I like debate. It's to my benefit to encourage people to avoid falling for trolls.

Seriously Jocabia... I'll support you should you get Promoted. :cool:

the idea that moving is always an option is near hopelessly naive.

the idea that moving is always an option is near hopelessly naive.

it's always an option.

however it's not always the best or even good option. ;)

the idea that moving is always an option is near hopelessly naive.

Not to mention, and I've discussed this before, the effect it has on the place you move out of. But every one just takes it as "I just moved" and ignores that that isn't what I was talking about.

When your low wage workers move out of an area because they can't afford to live there you end up with problems like San Francisco is facing where the people it takes to run the city can't afford to live in the city that they run. To insist that everyone just pull up stakes creates a larger problem that is suddenly at your smug middle class doorstep.

really, can you show stats that prove moving isn't an option?

Ha. Stats? I need only show one example. If so, you're WRONG. I've given you the example of my family. That's not a statistic. That's a fact.

It's not a stats issue. 20% of families make less than $18,500 in the US. That's not particularly telling. I can offer up stats all day. 13% of families in the US are in poverty. That means they don't make a living wage (enough money to live on). According to you they could just stop living so they can "save" money, since according to all statistics they don't have enough money to survive, let alone "save" money.



people do have the option to move. BUT it's an option. it may not be the best one, but it's still an option.

Again, you're failing here. You're scrambling. Do you know how much moving costs for a family? Exploding into a million pieces is an option too. It's a stupid option, but hey let's use that to say people aren't trapped as well.




not like your blanket statement that moving ISN'T an option.

Ha. I didn't say it's ALWAYS not an option. I said it's often not an option. Do I seriously need to teach you what a blanket statement is? Blanket means I said it applies to EVERYONE not some people.

A blanket statement is a statement that is as if obviously true in all cases. It's designed to be a "blanket" to cover everything. Blankets aren't selective. My statement was.

Aren't you a teacher? You really don't know what a blanket statement is? Come on, man. I expect better from you. This is just sad.


you accuse me of making a blanket statement yet let other blanket statements slide right on by... nice Jocabia.

"But Johnny did it too". Lots of people make stupid statements. I can't reply to all of them. I've known you for some time. I expect you not to say stupid things. Would you like me to change my expectations or would you prefer to stop saying stupid things like "moving is ALWAYS an option".

So let's see we have the "nuh-uh, you said a blanket statement" defense, followed by the "Jimmy did it too" defense. Do we have any more defenses I would expect to have been left behind in grade school?


and your pessimestic veiw of reality blinded you to several options.

Again, your "options" are assumptions. You have no evidence they were actually viable "options" much like your entire argument. You have no evidence they would have made a difference. You have no evidence they weren't tried. Just more ignorant assumptions. How can you possibly expect to defend an original ignorant assumption by posting more?

Ha. Pessimistic? What is that based on? We're not talking about all of the wonderous things that came out of being poor. Want to? Start a thread. I'll teach you what pessimistic looks like. Until then, you're make yet another ignorant assumption.

Granted Hindsight is 20/20... but have you tried...

when the argument between insurance and doctors stagnated. get the media involved. Get public opinion on your side. most news stations would love a "human interest" story.

25 years ago newspapers could hardly care. That's your solution? Seriously? Man, are you ever digging. Our situation wasn't unique. I could name stories like that all day long. Unless there was something special about us, why would anyone care. And who says if they do "care" that it would change anything. You're defense for your idiotic blanket statement is "um, well, did you try the media." What's next? Why didn't I write a letter to the Pope?

And by the way, 25 years ago, there wasn't fifty news stations and newspapers we had access to. There were three news stations and two newpapers in a city where stories like ours were so common that you could find one for every day that Chicago existed.



try to get some fundraiser going... some fundraisers can be applied to specific causes like paying medical bills. we have several places here that will do such things, maybe there are some in your area as well.

Ha. Amusing. Again, this was 25 years ago in a town where everyone was desperately poor. You're naming things that work in rich neighborhoods. If all it took was a fundraiser then we wouldn't have entire organizations dedicated to trying to help people in these situations. And, yes, my family contacted many charitable organizations, but as we weren't starving, we weren't high priority. Charity is incidentally exactly how we often got some of the help from doctors. It makes little difference to your overal financial situation when you're hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. It did save my sister's life, however.



heck, if you know others that grow their own veggies... setting up a "Neighborhood farmer's market" may bring in some extra cash, espeically if for a cause like your sister's.

We did share food. How does that help in a neighborhood where everyone is too poor? Again, you're talking about things that work in relatively well-to-do areas. We were the bad part of town. People don't come there. Now we could have sold things at the flea market, but given parents were only home enough to sleep and my brother and I were both working as much as we could, I don't see how that would help.

Meanwhile, you do realize you're simply making your hole deeper, right. You're making more ignorant suggestions to compound your original ignorant suggestion.



Don't get me wrong, I'm glad your sister is doing ok. (while I was reading this, I was thinking to ask you for the symtoms so I can pester the Docs here for their advice/opinions.)

and as I said, Hindsight is 20/20.

Oh, it was actually a relatively innocuous problem. The guy who solved it, did it in about ten seconds. Her medical record was wrong and everyone unfortunately assumed it was right including my parents. The first doctor who ignored the assumptions solved it in moments. It wasn't even that rare. It just should have been impossible according to her erroneous medical history.



no, I said it's always an OPTION. and I don't see you harping on the person who says that it's a myth. another blanket statement that is false and ignorant.

You don't get it. ALWAYS is the problem, not OPTION. An option is something that's possible, no? Seriously, you're making a really bad argument that gets a bit more ignorant with every post even though I give your more info each time. Each time you make suggestions that rely on assumptions that just can't be made. You keep making them instead of simply just admitting that not everyone can simply up and move. And, yes, OPTION means they CAN up and move. It's wrong. You know it's wrong. And you keep making the same stupid statement and trying to defend it with childhood arguments. Like the one above where you say "but Jimmy did it too".

The person who said it's a myth said that not EVERYONE can move. That's not a blanket statement. It treats people as individuals. It's the opposite of a blanket statement.



You're assuming that. I just said it's hard to choose the best options. seeing that you are releasing conditions and terms in drips and trickles, that changes the options and which are the best. I never said they didn't make the best choices. I just said it was hard. so the assumption is yours since you hold all the information.

Ha. Now you don't know what an assumption is? You're taking something for granted that you don't have evidence for. I have the evidence. I know exactly what happened. And what you said is that you would have handled it differently and you'd have been able to move. My parents kept us alive and relatively healthy and in school. They kept working and got through it. I told you that in the first post and you said you'd have done it differently without know what happened. If you can't see how stupid that is, then I can't help you. But trust me, it's an ignorant assumption to anyone who understands the meaning of the words.



oh, so the fault goes on the person recieving the infromation and the person withholding information is blameless? Gotcha.

I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand. Let's say you meet a girl and she tells you that she slept with the guy behind the bar. You decide she slept with him because he's a bartender. Turns out she used to be married to him and they met in high school. Only you didn't know this so you guessed at the information. Yes, yes, it's your fault if you made an assumption before you had all the information. An assumption you didn't have the information for. That's what an ignorant assumption is. The only way it could be my fault is if I lied to you. However, you knew what information you had and you knew what information would be required in order to support your claim. You didn't have that information and that makes your assumption one of ignorance.

Do I need to teach you the meaning of any more words or would you prefer to abandon the original ignorant claim you made?



it could, and it also means that you are willing and able to withhold information to further your position. which puts anything you post at great suspect. I wonder what else you're withholding from your family example? hmmm....

Not further my position. I didn't waste my time giving the information because I didn't think you were dumb enough to make claims about my family without the appropriate information. The point is that some families don't have the options you claim. You said they ALWAYS do. You've been squirming to defend that claim every since it slipped out of your fingers.



here we go, more information that was withheld. have you tried Media sources? the news and radio stations here would've put your story out and helped with getting a response and even financial help... would your local stations do that?

This was 25 years ago. No one cared. I came from the bad part of town. Everyone was poor. It was a starter community that went south fast when all the white people abandoned it when the black people and hispanics moved in. It's a pretty common story. If the media could save every poor family in America, I'd open a paper today.


HERE WE GO! an admission to willingly witholding information to further his position. yep. when you stack the deck and cheat, you will win. and you haven't disproved my "blanket statement" that moving is an option.

Not willingly withholding information. I didn't tell you I have blue eyes either, but you didn't ignorantly claim they were brown. It's not cheating. I made the unfortunate assumption that you wouldn't claim to know six years of my family history well enough to make assumptions. Obviously, my assumption was invalid and I was expecting too much.

The point is that you don't know the details of EVERY family in America and absent that you can't make a claim that it's always an option. Unless I'm withholding information about EVERY family in America then I can't help your statements not be ignorant. It will ALWAYS be ignorant because you can't say ALWAYS about families without knowing their circumstances.



not you, but others on this thread. just making sure to anyone popping in that I am not focusing on any one ethinicity.

Uh-huh. Seriously, I'm a bit sorry about this, JuNii. I clearly expected too much from your argument. Because this argument isn't worth the paper it's written on.

it's always an option.

however it's not always the best or even good option. ;)

Always means in every case. In order to support that assumption you'd have to have the details of every case in America. Otherwise the claim is ignorant. Really, Ju, step back for a minute and think about what you're saying. It really is hopelessly naive and beyond ignorant.

Ha. Stats? I need only show one example. If so, you're WRONG. I've given you the example of my family. That's not a statistic. That's a fact.except I provided 4, and can provide more with only one city. but I am not claming that people who do move to find better jobs outnumber those who don't.

oh, and here's an article from the LV SUN (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/1999/jun/13/508920184.html)
gee almost 2500 people from Hawaii relocated to Las Vegas due to economic reasons... so it's an option.

It's not a stats issue. 20% of families make less than $18,500 in the US. and that relates to moving as an option... how exactly...

Again, you're failing here. You're scrambling. Do you know how much moving costs for a family? Exploding into a million pieces is an option too. It's a stupid option, but hey let's use that to say people aren't trapped as well. did I say people were not Trapped? please show me where I said people were not trapped. I only stated and maintained that moving is an option. I've also never said moving is the best option. looks like you're doing alot of assumptions here.

Ha. I didn't say it's ALWAYS not an option. I said it's often not an option. Do I seriously need to teach you what a blanket statement is? Blanket means I said it applies to EVERYONE not some people. and I didn't say you said it's always an option, but funny how you attack one blanket statement and not the other.

A blanket statement is a statement that is as if obviously true in all cases. It's designed to be a "blanket" to cover everything. Blankets aren't selective. My statement was. and that assumption that I made a blanket statement was yours.

the start of this argument that you popped in on was
And comparing national unemployment rate does nothing for you. I think you'll find in places with very low unemployment, everyone is employed.

Try looking at places in the inner city. You know...places with unemployment considerably higher. It's the great american myth that if jobs aren't in one place that you can just pack up and go somewhere else.for a myth, it's strikenly real. I had several friends move because they couldn't find jobs here.

also there's the question of "the job is there, but are you willing to do that job."
gee, Neo Art's comment sounds like a blanket statement.

and my reply? I provided 4 examples where it's not a myth. suddenly I am accused by YOU that I made a blanket Statement that Moving is ALWAYS the BEST OPTION. a statement that I never made. keep trying Jocabia.


Aren't you a teacher? You really don't know what a blanket statement is? Come on, man. I expect better from you. This is just sad.Ohhh another assumption. for someone accusing ME of making alot of em, you keep doing it yourself. perhaps you should stop the accusations of people assuming things until you correct your little habit yourself and for your information. No, I am not a teacher, and I have never claimed to be a teacher. I did say I was a TA in my seinor year, but I never claimed that made me an educator.

"But Johnny did it too". Lots of people make stupid statements. I can't reply to all of them. I've known you for some time. I expect you not to say stupid things. Would you like me to change my expectations or would you prefer to stop saying stupid things like "moving is ALWAYS an option". I'm not asking for you to reply to them all, but it's funny that you got that statement in a post where I am quoting someone who says the option of Moving is a MYTH.

So let's see we have the "nuh-uh, you said a blanket statement" defense, followed by the "Jimmy did it too" defense. Do we have any more defenses I would expect to have been left behind in grade school?well, the dive into grade school debating tactics started with your withholding information and accusing me of making assumptions baised on withheld information.

Again, your "options" are assumptions. You have no evidence they were actually viable "options" much like your entire argument. You have no evidence they would have made a difference. You have no evidence they weren't tried. Just more ignorant assumptions. How can you possibly expect to defend an original ignorant assumption by posting more? now you change it by adding 'Viable'. please state where I said moving was always a VIABLE option.

25 years ago newspapers could hardly care. That's your solution? Seriously? Man, are you ever digging. Our situation wasn't unique. I could name stories like that all day long. Unless there was something special about us, why would anyone care. And who says if they do "care" that it would change anything. You're defense for your idiotic blanket statement is "um, well, did you try the media." What's next? Why didn't I write a letter to the Pope? 25 years ago, our newspapers had such stories. so I guess it only your local papers that didn't care about it. then again, it could be that only our newspapers cared to print such things. as for writing to the pope? some turned to churches. but then again, 25 years ago for you, your churches probably didn't care about such things either. that could be the difference between where you grew up and where I grew up.

And by the way, 25 years ago, there wasn't fifty news stations and newspapers we had access to. There were three news stations and two newpapers in a city where stories like ours were so common that you could find one for every day that Chicago existed.and where I grew up, we had one paper, and three stations. but you know what? the stories still got out there and the help still arrived. but then in this case, yes, I did assume that the community spirit would lend assistance to anyone who asked. for that I will apologize for assuming members of your community would care.

Ha. Amusing. Again, this was 25 years ago in a town where everyone was desperately poor. You're naming things that work in rich neighborhoods. If all it took was a fundraiser then we wouldn't have entire organizations dedicated to trying to help people in these situations. And, yes, my family contacted many charitable organizations, but as we weren't starving, we weren't high priority. Charity is incidentally exactly how we often got some of the help from doctors. It makes little difference to your overal financial situation when you're hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. It did save my sister's life, however.did I say that a fundraiser was "All it took"? no. but it would've helped. Did I say that fundraising would replace charity organizations? no, but it still would've helped. but then again, you're looking for options that will solve everything in one fell swoop.

We did share food. How does that help in a neighborhood where everyone is too poor? Again, you're talking about things that work in relatively well-to-do areas. We were the bad part of town. People don't come there. Now we could have sold things at the flea market, but given parents were only home enough to sleep and my brother and I were both working as much as we could, I don't see how that would help. did I say Share food, or did I say work together with other veggie growers and form up a "Neighborhood farmer's market" beeg difference. by working as a team, you can have others setting up at the flea market or in an area that is not so dangerous and split the cost as well as the profits.

and yes, we had those 25 years ago.

Meanwhile, you do realize you're simply making your hole deeper, right. You're making more ignorant suggestions to compound your original ignorant suggestion.Ignorant suggestions or suggestions you never thought of and are disreguarding because you never though them up. funny, those suggestions worked for me and other members of my community (who were not as well to do as you assume.)

Oh, it was actually a relatively innocuous problem. The guy who solved it, did it in about ten seconds. Her medical record was wrong and everyone unfortunately assumed it was right including my parents. The first doctor who ignored the assumptions solved it in moments. It wasn't even that rare. It just should have been impossible according to her erroneous medical history.Did you ask the lawyer back then if that mistake could be used as a means to reduce or erase the bills since the error caused the high bills in the first place? just asking because your sister could've died from that 'mistake'. almost sounds like a malpractice lawsuit to me.

You don't get it. ALWAYS is the problem, not OPTION. An option is something that's possible, no? Seriously, you're making a really bad argument that gets a bit more ignorant with every post even though I give your more info each time. Each time you make suggestions that rely on assumptions that just can't be made. You keep making them instead of simply just admitting that not everyone can simply up and move. And, yes, OPTION means they CAN up and move. It's wrong. You know it's wrong. And you keep making the same stupid statement and trying to defend it with childhood arguments. Like the one above where you say "but Jimmy did it too".and you're not reading. you admit it's an option, Neo Art said that the option of moving is a Myth. I said it's not always the best option, but it's always an option means it's just that. it's an option. you do know that Options change as the situation changes, right? If you are not aware, options that are good are not so good and can even be fatal as situations change, but they are always there. they may become harder to accomplish or even easier as the situation changes, but they are always there.

The person who said it's a myth said that not EVERYONE can move. That's not a blanket statement. It treats people as individuals. It's the opposite of a blanket statement.
And comparing national unemployment rate does nothing for you. I think you'll find in places with very low unemployment, everyone is employed.

Try looking at places in the inner city. You know...places with unemployment considerably higher. It's the great american myth that if jobs aren't in one place that you can just pack up and go somewhere else. please find where he not eveyone can move. or are you ASSUMING that is what he meant?

in which case you can also use that same logic to my statement that ALWAY AN OPTION means that it's not necessarily the best option or viable option depending on the situation at the time.

Ha. Now you don't know what an assumption is? You're taking something for granted that you don't have evidence for. I have the evidence. I know exactly what happened. And what you said is that you would have handled it differently and you'd have been able to move. My parents kept us alive and relatively healthy and in school. They kept working and got through it. I told you that in the first post and you said you'd have done it differently without know what happened. If you can't see how stupid that is, then I can't help you. But trust me, it's an ignorant assumption to anyone who understands the meaning of the words.funny, but the first situation where I said I'ld handle it differently, you only mentioned DEBT. so without any qualifiers as to the type of DEBTwould, incase you didn't know, include credit card, loans, morgages, bad investments as well as high bills. then the next post you mentioned your sister's medical situation which changes your scenario drastically. it highlights MEDICAL BILLS but does not discount the other forms of Debt. then finally, your post explaining the situation removes the other forms of Debt to leave HIGH MEDICAL BILLS, changing the situation to be totally different than just Debt. your with held information changed the situation. it changed the viability of the options available. Now if your sister had a condition where the only facility to treat her condition would be across the country and would take years, would your family find a way to move there? even if you keep the timetable the same, would your family find a way to move there with your sister?

I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand. Let's say you meet a girl and she tells you that she slept with the guy behind the bar. You decide she slept with him because he's a bartender.("I decide"... sounds like you're making another assumption about me. actually, I wouldn't assume that. I would assume that the person she indicates and her are friends.) Turns out she used to be married to him and they met in high school. Only you didn't know this so you guessed at the information. Yes, yes, it's your fault if you made an assumption before you had all the information. An assumption you didn't have the information for. That's what an ignorant assumption is. The only way it could be my fault is if I lied to you. However, you knew what information you had and you knew what information would be required in order to support your claim. You didn't have that information and that makes your assumption one of ignorance.my response is bolded. by the way, if you really want to be techincal. you did lie. it's called Lying by omission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie).

Do I need to teach you the meaning of any more words or would you prefer to abandon the original ignorant claim you made?gee teach... guess what...

Types of lies
Misleading is when a person tells a statement that isn't an outright lie, but still has the purpose of making someone believe in an untruth. An example would be a child who knocks over a vase, and, when questioned, states that "the cat was playing around on the shelves". The cat, indeed, was doing so, but was not the cause of the accident.

Lying by omission is where a person tells the truth but not the whole truth of the matter, leading the receiving person to believe and know only that specific part of the truth. Hence it is normally classified not as a lie but as an act of deception. For example, if a person ate a chicken caeser salad for lunch and is asked by a vegetarian, "Did you eat meat for lunch today?" The person can say, "I ate a salad," without technically lying, since he did eat a salad, while omitting the fact that the salad had chicken in it. Thus, the vegetarian would only know that the man ate a salad and would not know that the salad contained chicken. Note that "I ate a salad" does not correctly answer the question asked because the question requires a "yes" or "no" answer. But the man, upon telling the vegetarian that he ate a salad, leads the vegetarian to believe that the salad contained no meat (for, if the man was telling the full truth, he would explicitly say that the salad did contain meat). The vegetarian would not be able to find out what the man ate unless the vegetarian were to interrogate the man further. but to make my stance clear, I was not accusing you of Lying by omission, but witholding facts. the difference is, as you state later, you didn't deem it important then. but to judge me ignorant because of the facts you withheld tells me that you did think they were important facts (and they were) and so withheld it deliberatly with the intent to put yourself in a better position.

Not further my position. I didn't waste my time giving the information because I didn't think you were dumb enough to make claims about my family without the appropriate information. The point is that some families don't have the options you claim. You said they ALWAYS do. You've been squirming to defend that claim every since it slipped out of your fingers. not squirming, standing perfectly still... but like a bad marksman, you keep missing the target.

This was 25 years ago. No one cared. I came from the bad part of town. Everyone was poor. It was a starter community that went south fast when all the white people abandoned it when the black people and hispanics moved in. It's a pretty common story. If the media could save every poor family in America, I'd open a paper today. what... ONLY if the media could save EVERY POOR FAMILY IN AMERICA? Me, I would settle for as much as they could. but if you qualify it with EVERY POOR FAMILY IN AMERICA, then nothing would work.

Not willing withholding information. I didn't tell you I have blue eyes either, but you didn't ignorantly claim they were brown. It's not cheating. The point is that you don't know the details of EVERY family in America and absent that you can't make a claim that it's always an option. Unless I'm withholding information about EVERY family in America then I can't help your statemetn not be ignorant. It will ALWAYS be ignorant because you can't say ALWAYS about families without knowing their circumstances. sigh. I like how the original statement was that moving to a better job is a myth. you tack on "not for everyone" on that statement yet for some reason you tack on "ALWAYS THE BEST OPTION" when I say that the option of moving is always there. Moving can be a goal that the entire family can work for. thus it could take years, it will take alot of planning and effort but it CAN not will, be a viable option. they could sell all their possessions except their clothes and car, and drive (if not on an island, or sell their car and fly) to where the job is waiting and live at the YMCA or other organizations that have halfway homes.

wait... how can they have a job waiting before they move? internet searches. Monster.com... all can be done at the library, or a friend's home (ASSUMING they have friends with internet connections) money can be borrowed from family members or again, those friends (assuming they have either... the opposite is possible, improbable, but still possible.) and some businesses do have a moving fund allotment... they won't tell you but you can ask.

suddenly, an option you thought was gone is now viable and possible. difficult, yes. (I never said it was always easy.) but the option is there.

Uh-huh. Seriously, I'm a bit sorry about this, JuNii. I clearly expected too much from your argument. Because this argument isn't worth the paper it's written on.and I guess I expected too much on your comprehension skills.

TTFN.

Always means in every case. In order to support that assumption you'd have to have the details of every case in America. Otherwise the claim is ignorant. Really, Ju, step back for a minute and think about what you're saying. It really is hopelessly naive and beyond ignorant.

it is. but always an option does not mean always the best, or correct option.

it's always an option.

I can't understand how you would insist moving is ALWAYS an option completely ignoring the fact that moving has costs, and there are numerous people in this country whose income only covers existing costs or, as jocabia pointed out, where costs actually exceeds income.

I can't understand how you would insist moving is ALWAYS an option completely ignoring the fact that moving has costs, and there are numerous people in this country whose income only covers existing costs or, as jocabia pointed out, where costs actually exceeds income.because, with planning and work, costs can be reduced. money obtained and saved, and an option you thought would never work can become viable.

now, I wonder why you think everyone unemployeed is automatcially too poor or without resources to move.


granted there are some where moving is not a viable option, but it's still an option. it just becomes one of the nearer goals to work for in bettering themselves.

some choose poorly and move when they're not ready to. that makes the option to move bad, but still an option.

because, with planning and work, costs can be reduced. money obtained and saved, and an option you thought would never work can become viable.

now, I wonder why you think everyone unemployeed is automatcially too poor or without resources to move.

*sigh* great strawman. I never said for everyone unemployed it is NOT an option.

You were the one who said it is ALWAYS an option. Answer me one question, please. How does one move, anywhere, when costs excede income, and no costs can be further reduced?

Tell me, where's your option then? Where do you save then? Where's your money come from then?

*snip*

I started replying to this whole post but it's so riddled with misunderstandings that I feel like I'm picking on you.

I asked you if you're a teacher and you accuse me of making an assumption. You don't know what assumption means.

You accuse of person who says that something is not always an option of making a blanket statement.

You claim I accused you of saying "is always the best option" except I never mentioned best option except in reply to you bringing it up. I'm talking about whether it's an option at all and you keep talking about me accusing you of saying it's the best option.

You make a blanket statement and you think if you've given more examples supporing that claim than have been made against that claim then you've supported your claim. A blanket statement must be a blanket, meaning it must apply to everyone in the group you're referring. You said ALWAYS. No one else did. Just you. And by saying that, if there is one example that goes against your claim, then you're wrong. No amount of examples supporting you will ever help. This is basic logic, my friend.

You accuse me of withholding information from you because I didn't give you EVERY detail of the six years my family went through this.

You openly accuse me of lying by omission, because I didn't realize that if I didn't give you every detail you'd be dumb enought to start making things up.

Seriously has it become my job to help you understand the argument? I mean, seriously, I read your argument and I question whether or not you actually read my statements or just pieced together random words. I don't know how to help you, but I'm not going to reply point by point, because I don't think any english-speaker can read your argument and not see how flawed it is.

[snipped]

go read the arguments. you mentioned that my stance is that Moving is always a GOOD and VIABLE option. I made no such claim.

Neo Art did not say Always. he said that moving was a myth. you again added qualifiers to something that wasn't there.

you accuse me of being ignorant of your family's situation when each bit of information you gave changed the scenario, invalidating options baised on the given information and changing the options available. I did state that you did not view that information as important, but to call me ignorant when that information withheld proved to be IMPORTANT only shows that you withheld that information deliberatly.


and you have yet to show where I said Moving is a 'good' and 'viable' option.

good, bad, viable, not to be considered at this time, are all Options and their qualifiers change as the situation changes. but no, in your mind, "always an option" = "always a GOOD and VIABLE option." you know. most english speakers will see the added qualifiers you put in there.

it is. but always an option does not mean always the best, or correct option.

The problem is this pollyanna attitude (a) does nothing to address the problems of racism or poverty and (b) sounds judgmental of anyone who doesn't think they are in a position to move.

You may thinking moving is an option, but that may not be true for everyone else.

Moreover, if you are admitting that for many moving is not the best or correct option, then wtf is your point?

because, with planning and work, costs can be reduced. money obtained and saved, and an option you thought would never work can become viable.

No, it can't. If you have greater costs than income and no ability to reduce those costs or your income, then what you're saying is actually impossible.


now, I wonder why you think everyone unemployeed is automatcially too poor or without resources to move.

No one said everyone except you. That's because we recognize the logical fallacy that you're using and thus avoiding it. If anyone is too poor or without resources then your statement is wrong. That's basic logic.


granted there are some where moving is not a viable option, but it's still an option. it just becomes one of the nearer goals to work for in bettering themselves.

Ha. See, there are those moving goalposts. Not a viable option, but it's still an option? Viable means capable of functioning. When one says a viable option, they mean it's not possible. It's like saying everyone has the option to move objects with their mind, not a viable option, but an option. It's a non-statement when you take out viable because it means they have the option but they aren't capable of it.


some choose poorly and move when they're not ready to. that makes the option to move bad, but still an option.

And some can't choose to move at all. You've already admitted that it's not always a viable option. I suspect you don't actually know what viable means.

If what you say is true about goverment classification of unemployment, then I apologize and retract my staments about a higher laziness rate.

Well, that was easier than expected.

Given that what I said about government classification of unemployment is true and is verified by the link (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm) I provided to the definitive government source, I accept your apology.

I appreciate someone being willing to rethink their position.

Now perhaps you'd be willing to rethink your whole response to the OP.

BTW, despite the territorial pissing that is unavoidable on NSG, I'm happy to see this topic is still alive.

I rather expected it to prove to be a waste of time.

really, can you show stats that prove moving isn't an option?

Moving costs money. You need transportation to get there. You need shelter in your new area. You need food. You need something to live off of until you find a job in your new home. And so on...

If you have no money, how precisely are you going to move?

no, I said it's always an OPTION.

It's only an option if it is possible. If it is impossible, there is no such option to take.

oh, so the fault goes on the person recieving the infromation and the person withholding information is blameless? Gotcha.

I think the point is that you are jumping to conclusions - something people do quite often. "Oh, they have the option to move," you say, or, "They could have saved money." And yet, you don't have all the information about their situation, so how can you say that?

Most of us live in relatively privileged conditions. It's easy for us to make assumption about the options other people have - considering that we're not in their situations, and don't really have much of an idea what their situations entail.

Any blanket statement in this case is idiotic. To say that moving is always an option, when that might be impossible in a given situation, is one example. To say that moving is never an option would be another. The point is that there are situations where it isn't an option - where someone simply doesn't have the necessary resources.

go read the arguments. you mentioned that my stance is that Moving is always a GOOD and VIABLE option. I made no such claim.

Viable doesn't mean good. Viable means that they can moving is an option that could work. I gave you a ton of examples where it couldn't work. Seriously, you don't know what assumption, viable, and blanket statement means then why are you arguing on this forum? They make online dictionaries. Use them.


Neo Art did not say Always. he said that moving was a myth. you again added qualifiers to something that wasn't there.

I know he didn't say always. That's why it's not a blanket statement. He's talking about a particular myth we all know about that says that people can just up and move to find work. The "always" in that statement is implied. It's like if I say "Black people are criminals." The "all" is implied. Again, this is basic English.



you accuse me of being ignorant of your family's situation when each bit of information you gave changed the scenario, invalidating options baised on the given information and changing the options available. I did state that you did not view that information as important, but to call me ignorant when that information withheld proved to be IMPORTANT only shows that you withheld that information deliberatly.

I didn't accuse you of being ignorant of my family's situation. I accused you of making ignorant assumptions. You are necessarily ignorant of my family's situation. That's why you shouldn't make ANY assumptions and ANY that you make would be ignorant. The information only became IMPORTANT after you CHOSE to make assumptions. I thought you knew better than to make ignorant assumptions so it didn't occur to me to include the information that wasn't necessary. It never occurred to me for example, that if I didn't tell you about the lawyers, that you'd assume they hadn't gone to them and make further statements based on those assumptions. Or that if I didn't tell you we traded food, you'd assume we didn't. Again, keep trying to pretend I tricked you, but if you'd just not make absurd assumption you wouldn't so silly now.



and you have yet to show where I said Moving is a 'good' and 'viable' option.

Good has nothing to do with viable. Where did I say you said good? And I didn't say you said viable. Viable is implied whenever you use the word option. It just means that the option has the potential to actually happen.


good, bad, viable, not to be considered at this time, are all Options and their qualifiers change as the situation changes. but no, in your mind, "always an option" = "always a GOOD and VIABLE option." you know. most english speakers will see the added qualifiers you put in there.[/QUOTE]

Ha. I'm serious. I'm not even sure what to say about this.

*sigh* great strawman. I never said for everyone unemployed it is NOT an option.

You were the one who said it is ALWAYS an option. Answer me one question, please. How does one move, anywhere, when costs excede income, and no costs can be further reduced?

Tell me, where's your option then? Where do you save then? Where's your money come from then?let's see... a second or third part-time job? odd jobs like lawn maintenance, or washing cars, assistance from friends and family if possible, I mentioned fundraising from time to time, collecting recyclables and turning them in for cash, there are other legal things that can be done to raise extra cash. i never claimed it to be fast nor easy.

The problem is this pollyanna attitude (a) does nothing to address the problems of racism or poverty and (b) sounds judgmental of anyone who doesn't think they are in a position to move.

You may thinking moving is an option, but that may not be true for everyone else.

Moreover, if you are admitting that for many moving is not the best or correct option, then wtf is your point?gee. and where was this when everyone was busy crying 'racist' at each other? :p

I posted my ideas on how to address the problems and now discussing some suggestions with Mikesburg while everyone was busy point out that TPE was racist. I didn't see many people trying to address the problem of racism or poverty for most of this thread.

and the point is that moving is always an option. it may not be a good option depending on the situation, but it can become a good option if one works to make it a good option.

moving as an option is NOT a myth. it's not easy, nor at times, quick, or even right, but it's an option.

*sigh* great strawman. I never said for everyone unemployed it is NOT an option.

You were the one who said it is ALWAYS an option. Answer me one question, please. How does one move, anywhere, when costs excede income, and no costs can be further reduced?

Tell me, where's your option then? Where do you save then? Where's your money come from then?

I don't even know what to say anymore. It's like I'm speaking German. He thinks viable means good. He thinks that asking a question is making an assumption. He thinks saying something is always true isn't a blanket statement, and saying something is sometimes not ture is. He thinks that unless I assume that anything I don't mention about the six years of abject poverty my family endured he will make assumptions about that I am lying by omission. Seriously, I think his argument would make more sense if I translated all of my comments to Norwegian or something.

Really, I hate to give up on somebody, but the entire argument has come down to his misunderstanding of English.

let's see... a second or third part-time job? odd jobs like lawn maintenance, or washing cars, assistance from friends and family if possible, I mentioned fundraising from time to time, collecting recyclables and turning them in for cash, there are other legal things that can be done to raise extra cash. i never claimed it to be fast nor easy.

All of those require free time. In many cases, like my parents, everyone is already working as much as they can. Time, like money, doesn't grow on trees. The number of hours in a week is not infinite.



gee. and where was this when everyone was busy crying 'racist' at each other? :p

I posted my ideas on how to address the problems and now discussing some suggestions with Mikesburg while everyone was busy point out that TPE was racist. I didn't see many people trying to address the problem of racism or poverty for most of this thread.

and the point is that moving is always an option. it may not be a good option depending on the situation, but it can become a good option if one works to make it a good option.

moving as an option is NOT a myth. it's not easy, nor at times, quick, or even right, but it's an option.

Ha. Again, you just keep stating it. Wow. Just wow.

EDIT: One of the argument run through a translator.

Goods to not to be considered badly, usefully, currently, are change all options and its Qualifizierer as the situation changes. But no in your mind, "always an option" = "always some GOODS and USEFUL option". They know. The Most english speakers will see the additional Qualifizierer that you place in there.
Nope. I can't seem to make heads or tails of it.

let's see... a second or third part-time job? odd jobs like lawn maintenance, or washing cars, assistance from friends and family if possible, I mentioned fundraising from time to time, collecting recyclables and turning them in for cash, there are other legal things that can be done to raise extra cash. i never claimed it to be fast nor easy.

gee. and where was this when everyone was busy crying 'racist' at each other? :p

I posted my ideas on how to address the problems and now discussing some suggestions with Mikesburg while everyone was busy point out that TPE was racist. I didn't see many people trying to address the problem of racism or poverty for most of this thread.

and the point is that moving is always an option. it may not be a good option depending on the situation, but it can become a good option if one works to make it a good option.

moving as an option is NOT a myth. it's not easy, nor at times, quick, or even right, but it's an option.

Moving can be a scary prospect, but it need not be terribly expensive... you just need to know how the sytem works.

That being said, I dont' think that we should be embracing the idea that we should just give up on people in a given area and encourage them to leave for better prospects elsewhere. We should definitely be looking at options to encourage investment and opporutunites for economic growth in our own regions first. Enterprising folks will leave reglardeless of what governmeng does anyway.

Ha. Amusing. Again, this was 25 years ago in a town where everyone was desperately poor. You're naming things that work in rich neighborhoods. If all it took was a fundraiser then we wouldn't have entire organizations dedicated to trying to help people in these situations. And, yes, my family contacted many charitable organizations, but as we weren't starving, we weren't high priority.

My grandmother once tried to go to the Red Cross for help, but they said her income was too high. At the time, they apparently didn't take into account much more than your income - she was a single mom raising 6 kids and largely supporting her mother (who was pretty much the only person around to actually take care of the kids while my grandmother worked). My grandmother and granny often went nights where they would be lucky to eat a few veggies and potatoes, because they'd give whatever meat they had to the kids and only eat what was leftover.

To this day, my aunt won't give to the Red Cross because of this. She was one of the older kids, so she saw much more clearly what my grandmother and granny went through. Personally, I think the Red Cross does a great deal of good and I wouldn't stop giving because of one incident - but I can understand her viewpoint.

gee. and where was this when everyone was busy crying 'racist' at each other? :p

I posted my ideas on how to address the problems and now discussing some suggestions with Mikesburg while everyone was busy point out that TPE was racist. I didn't see many people trying to address the problem of racism or poverty for most of this thread.

Gee. I have a life and haven't been monitoring every exchange in the thread.

You may note I replied on the crux of the TPE debate and successfully got TPE to retract his/her primary racist statement.

I do recognize that you and Mikesburg carried on a more constructive conversation. Let me note that I appreciate that discussion, and I'll comment on it when I get the time.

and the point is that moving is always an option. it may not be a good option depending on the situation, but it can become a good option if one works to make it a good option.

It isn't a good point. This started with the vague suggestion that moving is a cure for unemployment and poverty. As Neo Art correctly pointed out, that is plain silly. (Before you object, I know you have never flat out said that moving solves unemployment or poverty. But you did pick up the point from someone that was making that suggestion.)

I know you've gotten entrenched in this silly did so/did not debate about whether it is always possible to move. Sit back for a minute. You've already admitted that moving isn't always a good option. Now consider that it is possible that someone might be in a situation where moving isn't possible.

moving as an option is NOT a myth. it's not easy, nor at times, quick, or even right, but it's an option.

For the purposes of this discussion and the context in which it came up, the idea of moving as an option to solve unemployment and poverty is so naive and nonfunctional that it is little better than myth.

Moving may sometimes help solve the problems of some people. It certainly is no panacea. It is rather silly to debate whether it is possible for everyone when it isn't a good idea for everyone and isn't a feasible solution for the problem as a whole.

Viable doesn't mean good. Viable means that they can moving is an option that could work. I gave you a ton of examples where it couldn't work. Seriously, you don't know what assumption, viable, and blanket statement means then why are you arguing on this forum? They make online dictionaries. Use them.No, you gave ONE example. and notice you didn't answer my question. if the Doctor who found the mistake actually deduced that the only facility that she could get better would be across the country and would take years of treatment, would you have found a way to make moving viable?

I know he didn't say always. That's why it's not a blanket statement. He's talking about a particular myth we all know about that says that people can just up and move to find work. The "always" in that statement is implied. It's like if I say "Black people are criminals." The "all" is implied. Again, this is basic English. I know he didn't say always, he said Moving was a myth. He didn't quantify it by saying moving wasn't for everyone. that's what YOU said he said.

now give me a situation where moving isn't an option. what as Jocabia will assume I mean a good and/or viable option. which was NEVER my stance.

I didn't accuse you of being ignorant of my family's situation. I accused you of making ignorant assumptions. You are necessarily ignorant of my family's situation. That's why you shouldn't make ANY assumptions and ANY that you make would be ignorant. The information only became IMPORTANT after you CHOSE to make assumptions. I thought you knew better than to make ignorant assumptions so it didn't occur to me to include the information that wasn't necessary. It never occurred to me for example, that if I didn't tell you about the lawyers, that you'd assume they hadn't gone to them and make further statements based on those assumptions. Or that if I didn't tell you we traded food, you'd assume we didn't. Again, keep trying to pretend I tricked you, but if you'd just not make absurd assumption you wouldn't so silly now.and those "ignorant assumptions" were what...

you gave the scenario. I was perfectly willing to say, and did say, that I agreed you did not think them important. But instead of just adding those additional information and letting me reasses the options available, you came in with the accusations of Ignorant Assumptions.

I find it amusing that you make such an absurd statement without the information it would take to make such a statement true. Basically, your statement is ignorant. and what was that statement?
*shrugs* there are things I would've done, but then there are things I can live without.

so what assumptions did I make about your family? I said 'I' can do without.

Good has nothing to do with viable. Where did I say you said good? And I didn't say you said viable. Viable is implied whenever you use the word option. It just means that the option has the potential to actually happen.no, Viable isn't implied whenever the word 'option' is used. it's only implied if the conversation narrows it down to viable option. Whether or not an option becomes viable is dependant on the situation. sometimes you have to work at the stituation to make it a viable option. but viable or not, it's still an option.

good, bad, viable, not to be considered at this time, are all Options and their qualifiers change as the situation changes. but no, in your mind, "always an option" = "always a GOOD and VIABLE option." you know. most english speakers will see the added qualifiers you put in there.

Ha. I'm serious. I'm not even sure what to say about this.Seriously? I was expecting something along the lines of... there's Junii arguing semantics again. :rolleyes: :p

Gee. I have a life and haven't been monitoring every exchange in the thread.

You may note I replied on the crux of the TPE debate and successfully got TPE to retract his/her primary racist statement.

I do recognize that you and Mikesburg carried on a more constructive conversation. Let me note that I appreciate that discussion, and I'll comment on it when I get the time.



It isn't a good point. This started with the vague suggestion that moving is a cure for unemployment and poverty. As Neo Art correctly pointed out, that is plain silly. (Before you object, I know you have never flat out said that moving solves unemployment or poverty. But you did pick up the point from someone that was making that suggestion.)

I know you've gotten entrenched in this silly did so/did not debate about whether it is always possible to move. Sit back for a minute. You've already admitted that moving isn't always a good option. Now consider that it is possible that someone might be in a situation where moving isn't possible.



For the purposes of this discussion and the context in which it came up, the idea of moving as an option to solve unemployment and poverty is so naive and nonfunctional that it is little better than myth.

Moving may sometimes help solve the problems of some people. It certainly is no panacea. It is rather silly to debate whether it is possible for everyone when it isn't a good idea for everyone and isn't a feasible solution for the problem as a whole.

The problem he admitted it's sometimes not a viable option which his statement make about as much sense as saying human being have the option of becoming butterflies.

I like your tact here. Thanks for that. It's frustrating because we appear to be struggling with the meaning of words here and how do you fix that when the person won't admit it.

Gee. I have a life and haven't been monitoring every exchange in the thread.

You may note I replied on the crux of the TPE debate and successfully got TPE to retract his/her primary racist statement.

I do recognize that you and Mikesburg carried on a more constructive conversation. Let me note that I appreciate that discussion, and I'll comment on it when I get the time. yes I did notice that.

and I do look forward to your comments. If one can find a legal way to make ideas work... my money's on you.


It isn't a good point. This started with the vague suggestion that moving is a cure for unemployment and poverty. As Neo Art correctly pointed out, that is plain silly. (Before you object, I know you have never flat out said that moving solves unemployment or poverty. But you did pick up the point from someone that was making that suggestion.)

I know you've gotten entrenched in this silly did so/did not debate about whether it is always possible to move. Sit back for a minute. You've already admitted that moving isn't always a good option. Now consider that it is possible that someone might be in a situation where moving isn't possible.there are situations where moving isn't the right choice. but can you also say that the situation cannot be nudged to make moving a viable choice?

For the purposes of this discussion and the context in which it came up, the idea of moving as an option to solve unemployment and poverty is so naive and nonfunctional that it is little better than myth.for this point, I can only say that there is NO singular CURE. but a series of "band aids" to cure the symptoms may be what's in order. if the jobs don't exsist in one city/state, but do in others, perhaps moving is a solution. not a cure-all, but a solution to a symptom.

... hows this for an idea. a federal work program that will assist people to move to where the jobs are, assist in housing and is paid back to the government with small increases in taxes. that would require businesses to register their openings and their requirements. an on-line website can list the openings and even a periodical printed and sent out to those unemployed. perhaps through the unemployment offices or welfare...

Hmmm.... need to flesh this idea out...

Moving may sometimes help solve the problems of some people. It certainly is no panacea. It is rather silly to debate whether it is possible for everyone when it isn't a good idea for everyone and isn't a feasible solution for the problem as a whole. i never said it was always a feasible solution or a viable option. :p

here's a question. is money the only thing keeping people from moving to where the jobs are? and before anyone says "duh" some people are quite attachted to their neighborhoods and sometimes their reluctance to move stems from that.

granted there are some where moving is not a viable option, but it's still an option.

If it isn't a viable option, it isn't an option. You're stretching the word to the point of making it useless here.

You seem to think Jocabia is the only one looking at it that way, but to most people, the statement, "This is always an option," means that it is always possible - that it is always viable.

no, Viable isn't implied whenever the word 'option' is used. it's only implied if the conversation narrows it down to viable option. Whether or not an option becomes viable is dependant on the situation. sometimes you have to work at the stituation to make it a viable option. but viable or not, it's still an option.

See, there it is again. How can one take an option that isn't viable? And if one cannot take an option, how is it an option in the first place?


Meanwhile, you and Jocabia are both mischaracterizing each other's arguments and even misquoting each other to a point (nothing new with that on NSG, right?). Maybe if you both took a step back and looked more closely, you wouldn't be at each others' throats?


BTW, despite the territorial pissing that is unavoidable on NSG, I'm happy to see this topic is still alive.

I rather expected it to prove to be a waste of time.

It's gone a bit off-topic, methinks, but that's normal for NSG. =)

In recent threads (and old threads), some have questioned whether blacks are still disadvantaged in America. Some have even gone so far as to claim blacks are more privileged than whites.

Let me commit the cardinal sin of asking you to look at some facts:

African American men are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as white males and make only 75 percent as much a year. They’re nearly seven times more likely to be incarcerated, and their average jail sentences are 10 months longer than those of white men. In addition, young black males between the ages of 15 and 34 years are nine times more likely to die of homicide than their white counterparts and nearly seven times as likely to suffer from AIDS.


In terms of annual median income, black men earned less than three-quarters of what white men earned ($34,443 vs. $46,807), roughly a $12,000 gap. Black women made 87 percent of what white women made and $5,000 less than black men ($29,588 a year).


Further evidence of discrimination comes from more complex and detailed comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts.


Unemployment was highest among black men – 9.5 percent compared to 4.0 percent for white men – a 5.5 percentage point gap. Black women experienced an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, 4.4 percentage points above the 4.1 percent of their white counterparts.


Poverty, much like unemployment, also tends to affect blacks, especially those under 18, at a higher rate than whites; nearly 25 percent live below the poverty line, three times the percentage of whites. Of blacks under 18, 33.5 percent lived in poverty compared to 10 percent of white youths.


Homeownership among blacks is substantially lower than among whites (47.9 percent compared to 75.8 percent) and they’re three times more likely to get high-priced mortgage loans (54.7 percent of blacks vs. 17.2 percent of whites).


Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants.


In 1995, white males held 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management were African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.


In 1995, African Americans held only 2.5 percent of top jobs in the private sector and African American men with professional degrees earned only 79 percent of the amount earned by their white counterparts. Comparably situated African American women earned only 60 percent of the amount earned by white males. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.


Some sources:
National Urban League’s THE STATE OF BLACK AMERICA 2007 (Executive Summary, pdf) (http://www.nul.org/publications/SOBA/Executive%20Summary/2007SOBAEXCSUMMARY.pdf)
Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (1995) (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Job Patterns For Minorities And Women In Private Industry (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/jobpat.html)
Census report: Broad racial disparities persist (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15704759/)
Poverty trends by race (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.html)

I've no doubt that all of this is true. Though you could probably play with it if you chose a geographic analysis.

Still, you've noticed that the working class are stuck as being the working class. Well done.

[snip]please show me where options are defined only as Viable options?

it's something you can choose.

option

noun
1. the right to buy or sell property at an agreed price; the right is purchased and if it is not exercised by a stated date the money is forfeited
2. one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen; "what option did I have?"; "there no other alternative"; "my only choice is to refuse"
3. the act of choosing or selecting; "your choice of colors was unfortunate"; "you can take your pick" [syn: choice] yes, you can make a bad choice, or you can choose to make the choice a good one by changing the situation. but during all that time, it's still a choice.

and please show me where my arguments that moving is always an option, granted not a viable or good option, but an option nonetheless is no less all encompasing as Neo art's comment about moving being a myth.

Please show me where, in his quote...
Try looking at places in the inner city. You know...places with unemployment considerably higher. It's the great american myth that if jobs aren't in one place that you can just pack up and go somewhere else.
where he's quantifying the act of moving as only to mean "when moving isn't a sound, viable choice."

No, you gave ONE example. and notice you didn't answer my question. if the Doctor who found the mistake actually deduced that the only facility that she could get better would be across the country and would take years of treatment, would you have found a way to make moving viable?

If going elsewhere was required to save her life then some charities might have considered us a special case. However, we weren't a special case, which was precisely my point. The argument isn't that moving is sometimes an option, but that it is always an option, and if you have to change the scenario to make it an option, then you're admitting you were wrong.

One example is all it takes. You said ALWAYS. If I give ONE example, which you admit is an example of it not being possible, you're wrong. It's that simple. Meanwhile, I did actually list out tons of examples. I gave one specific example and whole bunch of general ones.




I know he didn't say always, he said Moving was a myth. He didn't quantify it by saying moving wasn't for everyone. that's what YOU said he said.

It's implied. Again, if I said "White people can't jump is a myth", the fact that I was saying that it's not always true is implied. That's the point. Because what I'm calling a myth has an implied ALWAYS. You must understand this, since your reply to him was to say that moving IS ALWAYS an option which is the only thing you could have said and disagreed with him. Again, I can't believe I have to explain this.



now give me a situation where moving isn't an option.

what as Jocabia will assume I mean a good and/or viable option. which was NEVER my stance.

Ha. I did. You already admit I did. That you don't understand this invalidates your point is the problem here. And again, viable is implied. This really is basic English. Really basic. I'll give you an example.

Johnny: I think I failed this test. I've done well all semester and I had a family crisis last night and was just tired.
Teacher: Bring a note and I'll give you the option of retaking the test.
Johnny: Oh, thanks. I'll study hard and do much better the next time.
Teacher: Oh, no. I didn't mean I'd give you a VIABLE option. I just meant that you could retake the test, if not for the fact that you can't.



and those "ignorant assumptions" were what...

Shall I quote them. Let's go there, shall we?

when the argument between insurance and doctors stagnated. get the media involved. Get public opinion on your side. most news stations would love a "human interest" story.

try to get some fundraiser going... some fundraisers can be applied to specific causes like paying medical bills. we have several places here that will do such things, maybe there are some in your area as well.

heck, if you know others that grow their own veggies... setting up a "Neighborhood farmer's market" may bring in some extra cash, espeically if for a cause like your sister's.

Every one of those is ignorant. They assume these weren't tried and since you don't know if they were or weren't (or didn't when you made these) then they are ignorant. Again, do I have to explain what ignorant means?

*shrugs* there are things I would've done, but then there are things I can live without.

Again, you make the assumption here that they could simply didn't do the things you would've done. The problem is since you didn't know what was done, it was ignorant.

And then you defended it and blamed me for not realizing in advance that you would assume you knew a situation you didn't and start making assumptions about it. The accusation is so absurd that one wonders what you'll do for an encore.


you gave the scenario. I was perfectly willing to say, and did say, that I agreed you did not think them important. But instead of just adding those additional information and letting me reasses the options available, you came in with the accusations of Ignorant Assumptions.

You made assumptions. Since they were based on information you don't have, they were ignorant. Ignorant is a word. It applies to your assumptions. You should avoid it. You have the option of not making assumptions without information. And, yes, you can assume there that I mean viable option, since this is English.


and what was that statement?

Several of them are quoted above. Every one of them suggests my parents must not have tried the things you would have.


so what assumptions did I make about your family? I said 'I' can do without.

You said you would have handled it differently. In order to make that statement you'd have to know how they handled it. You don't. That's ignorant.



no, Viable isn't implied whenever the word 'option' is used. it's only implied if the conversation narrows it down to viable option. Whether or not an option becomes viable is dependant on the situation. sometimes you have to work at the stituation to make it a viable option. but viable or not, it's still an option.

Neo Art: I can't post as Arthais101 anymore.
Mods: Neo Art has the option of still posting as Arthais101.
Neo Art: Um, but my nation doesn't exist.
Mods: Oh, I didn't say it was a VIABLE option.

See how nonsensical your argument has become.




Seriously? I was expecting something along the lines of... :p

The problem is that your semantics are wrong. You are arguing semantics and your misusing almost every term you're claiming.

please show me where options are defined only as Viable options?

it's something you can choose.

You can only choose something when it is possible to choose it - possible to do it - viable.

In the way that you have been using the word "option" - by including non-viable options - I could say, "I have the option of getting my oil changed at Starbucks." Of course, that would be an idiotic statement. The truth is, I don't have that option - because it isn't available to me. I cannot choose to get my oil changed at Starbucks because that isn't a service they provide - it is not a viable option. But, according to you, it is an option.

yes, you can make a bad choice, or you can choose to make the choice a good one by changing the situation. but during all that time, it's still a choice.

Or it can be plain old impossible for you to do it, because you simply don't have the resources. You can't really choose something when you can't even do it, now can you?

and please show me where my arguments that moving is always an option, granted not a viable or good option, but an option nonetheless is no less all encompasing as Neo art's comment about moving being a myth.

Because, while perhaps not very well-worded, Neo's comment was meant to address the very idea that you are putting forth - that it is always an option. The myth in this case is the idea that anyone can just up and move if they can't find a job. It simply isn't true. Some people can. Some people cannot. Many of the people who are in mind when someone says, "Well, why don't they just move?" cannot.

If it isn't a viable option, it isn't an option. You're stretching the word to the point of making it useless here.

That's one of two things I'm claiming.

The only reason I got annoyed is I told him a story about my family that told nothing about how they'd handled the situation, but only what the basic situation was and his reply was "I would have handled it differently". This MUST assume he knows how they handled it or he couldn't possibly claim he would necessarily have handled it differently. It's also fairly insulting. The second thing I'm claiming relates to this.

In fact, the claim that moving is ALWAYS an option is insulting as well, it's the typical middle and upper class claim (read that to ba claim that is usually made by upper and middle class people) that if poor people would just get up of their ass the situation wouldn't be so grim. It's wildely naive and terribly insulting to the percentage of poor people who are chasing every option of supporting their family.

Okay, now that I'm sober, I'd like to address the moving issue. :p

One can take a look at Canada, and the economic disparity between the provinces. Newfoundland, ever since the collapse of the fishery economy, is in dire economic straits. Subsequently, you'll find newfies all over Canada now, working their way into any job prospect they can get. Alberta in particular is booming, and you'll find an enormous newfie population there.

However, the cost of moving is high. If you go with a professional moving company, the cost of your move is any where from a couple of thousand dollars to over $10,000 in some instances (depending on the weight of your shipment and the distance travelled, and time of the year). You could opt to rent a U-haul, which will cut down your labour expenses, but is still expensive. So, what ends up happening is that usually one family member will head out to Alberta and find work, while the family is back home in Newfoundland (or whatever area of Canada they're from). Sometimes, the only real solution is to sell everything they own and start over. This isn't a pleasant option for most people.

On top of the moving issue, is the availablity of affordable housing in Alberta. You can find a job quite easily. Working at Tim Hortons (coffee shop) pays better than some factory work in Ontario. Good luck finding a place to live. Demand for housing is fueling the construction industry, but in the meantime, you can't move there. So, again, an individual works there, and sends money home.

This is a situation that immigrants face all the time. They leave their nation, often one in dire economic straits, and work in Canada or the US and slowly build up a fund to bring the rest of the family over. Now, this is of course commendable. However, to suggest moving as an option to solve economic problems is unrealistic. Economic prosperity usually goes hand in hand with growing populations, and capital moving into your zone. Encouraging people to leave only reduces the capital being spent in your state/province what have you. It may be a slight reduction in state spending, but in general I don't think it addresses the problem at its core.

Rather than suggesting that poor people move, it's a better idea to create conditions for economic growth at home first. How we do that is the tricky part.

And yet, the last time I was looking for a job in Atlanta - looking at jobs like retail, waiting tables, even cleaning up after animals - it took me almost a month to find one - and I'm a middle class white chick with a bachelor's degree and my own car (so I could get to wherever the jobs were).

I don't know what the problem is, whenever we come into Gwinnett, you can't see past the help wanted and now hiring signs. I've even hired three engineers in the last month. Our problem is one of qualification, not quantity -- we have more resumes than ever before.

I understand Henry County has claimed the distinction of fastest growing in Georgia. I can't imagine things are any different there.

Always means in every case. In order to support that assumption you'd have to have the details of every case in America. Otherwise the claim is ignorant. Really, Ju, step back for a minute and think about what you're saying. It really is hopelessly naive and beyond ignorant.

I think you are getting proofs mixed up with public policy. Significance is a real consideration when formulating policy. Basically, your family's struggles and perceived inability to 'follow the jobs' is an insignificant anecdote that really doesn't help or hinder the claim that one _should_ leave an unproductive region for a productive one.

Show me that this affects a significant portion of the population, and you've got a point that needs to be addressed.

I don't know what the problem is, whenever we come into Gwinnett, you can't see past the help wanted and now hiring signs. I've even hired three engineers in the last month. Our problem is one of qualification, not quantity -- we have more resumes than ever before.

I understand Henry County has claimed the distinction of fastest growing in Georgia. I can't imagine things are any different there.

Oh, there were plenty of help wanted and now hiring signs. There were also lots and lots and lots of applicants for each job. And if those people had more experience or seemed less likely to be a short term worker, I got passed over.

There are a lot of available jobs in Atlanta and the surrounding areas. There are also lots of people who want said jobs, so it can be rather difficult to find one.

I think you are getting proofs mixed up with public policy. Significance is a real consideration when formulating policy. Basically, your family's struggles and perceived inability to 'follow the jobs' is an insignificant anecdote that really doesn't help or hinder the claim that one _should_ leave an unproductive region for a productive one.

Show me that this affects a significant portion of the population, and you've got a point that needs to be addressed.

Is a significant portion of the population in poverty or just above the poverty line? If so, a significant portion of the population cannot simply up and move. Moving costs money - so you already have to have money in order to "follow the jobs."

Oh, there were plenty of help wanted and now hiring signs. There were also lots and lots and lots of applicants for each job. And if those people had more experience or seemed less likely to be a short term worker, I got passed over.

There are a lot of available jobs in Atlanta and the surrounding areas. There are also lots of people who want said jobs, so it can be rather difficult to find one.

Probably being a college graduate hinders you when looking for those types of jobs.

Hmm, never been there.

Moving costs money. You need transportation to get there. You need shelter in your new area. You need food. You need something to live off of until you find a job in your new home. And so on...

If you have no money, how precisely are you going to move?

Here is where the traditional family makes things so much easier. You move incrementally. Dad goes first, lives at the Y, and finds a job. Then Dad sends for Mom and the kids. Maybe they just take the bus, maybe they pack stuff into a U-Haul, but they move when there is somewhere to go.

Sadly, the traditional family is harder to maintain in our welfare system and you see fewer poor families with all the parts.

One of the beneficial things that our system of entitlements could provide would be relocation assistance. Provide sponsors in an area where jobs are available. Or work with the companies in up and coming areas to make outreaches into communities where potential employees reside. That's the thought behind all the job fairs that are held. Not all of those job fairs are looking for college grads, either.

Training through apprenticeships would be a great aid in filling that middle ground between manual labor and college grad work. There any number of potential solutions that might be good.

Let's not keep wringing our hands looking for the perfect solution, when a couple of good ones may do the trick.

One of the beneficial things that our system of entitlements could provide would be relocation assistance. Provide sponsors in an area where jobs are available. Or work with the companies in up and coming areas to make outreaches into communities where potential employees reside. That's the thought behind all the job fairs that are held. Not all of those job fairs are looking for college grads, either.

Oh no. Letting the government get into the business of shipping the unemployed around the country would be a disaster.


Training through apprenticeships would be a great aid in filling that middle ground between manual labor and college grad work. There any number of potential solutions that might be good.


That's a good idea though. There is a real shortage of skilled technicians in this country.

Probably being a college graduate hinders you when looking for those types of jobs.

That was part of it. In more than one interview, I got the question: "I see here it says you have a bachelor's degree in engineering. Why do you want to work here?" In the end, as much as I hated doing it, I had to lie to get the job I found - by telling them I wanted a job while I was in grad school. In truth, I already knew that I would be getting a living stipend while in grad school (and that my department does not allow us to have outside jobs). I was just looking for a source of income between graduating undergrad and starting in grad school. But I wasn't going to have a job if I actually told people that. =(


Here is where the traditional family makes things so much easier. You move incrementally. Dad goes first, lives at the Y, and finds a job. Then Dad sends for Mom and the kids. Maybe they just take the bus, maybe they pack stuff into a U-Haul, but they move when there is somewhere to go.

If mom's income can tide them over long enough, that would work. But what if they need both incomes just to put food on the table?

One of the beneficial things that our system of entitlements could provide would be relocation assistance. Provide sponsors in an area where jobs are available. Or work with the companies in up and coming areas to make outreaches into communities where potential employees reside. That's the thought behind all the job fairs that are held. Not all of those job fairs are looking for college grads, either.

Training through apprenticeships would be a great aid in filling that middle ground between manual labor and college grad work. There any number of potential solutions that might be good.

Let's not keep wringing our hands looking for the perfect solution, when a couple of good ones may do the trick.

All of these sound like good ideas to me. I also think that job training should be a large part of the welfare system. In my mind, the point of welfare is to help someone get on (or back on) their own two feet. Job training/placement/relocation assistance/etc. would all be good ideas.

Oh no. Letting the government get into the business of shipping the unemployed around the country would be a disaster.

Not quite, I'd hope. I don't want to see any level of government plan or forecast labor needs. Business is good at that and they should be the ones to do it. Government could provide a liaison between business and labor, though, in the form of job fairs (already exists) or other sorts of community outreach.

They could provide some sponsorship to a relocating family for the increased living expenses that are incurred during a move.

There are probably some other things they could do, but just helping out around the rough edges is what I'd thought to be appropriate.

If mom's income can tide them over long enough, that would work. But what if they need both incomes just to put food on the table?

By and large, it's the way our country was settled. First the emigration from Europe, then the move westward. Not everyone came over on the Mayflower...

Not quite, I'd hope. I don't want to see any level of government plan or forecast labor needs. Business is good at that and they should be the ones to do it. Government could provide a liaison between business and labor, though, in the form of job fairs (already exists) or other sorts of community outreach.

They could provide some sponsorship to a relocating family for the increased living expenses that are incurred during a move.

There are probably some other things they could do, but just helping out around the rough edges is what I'd thought to be appropriate.

Well, you already get a tax advantage for relocating, job search and such. That should be enough in my opinion.

I am also a big believer in the idea that you shouldn't make things easier for failing regions. A sort of "you made your bed, now lie in it" philosophy. After all, the rust belt is largely the result of irresponsibility in the first place.

That was part of it. In more than one interview, I got the question: "I see here it says you have a bachelor's degree in engineering. Why do you want to work here?" In the end, as much as I hated doing it, I had to lie to get the job I found - by telling them I wanted a job while I was in grad school. In truth, I already knew that I would be getting a living stipend while in grad school (and that my department does not allow us to have outside jobs). I was just looking for a source of income between graduating undergrad and starting in grad school. But I wasn't going to have a job if I actually told people that. =(


What kind of engineering? (I'm always curious, my bachelors was civil).

What kind of engineering? (I'm always curious, my bachelors was civil).

Biomedical.

I think you are getting proofs mixed up with public policy. Significance is a real consideration when formulating policy. Basically, your family's struggles and perceived inability to 'follow the jobs' is an insignificant anecdote that really doesn't help or hinder the claim that one _should_ leave an unproductive region for a productive one.

Show me that this affects a significant portion of the population, and you've got a point that needs to be addressed.

So you don't have to prove that your solution is possible? I instead have to argue against it? How convenient for you. I propose they all trade their cows for magic beans. I'll wait for you to show that a significant portion of the population cannot do so.

Meanwhile, I've already shown the percentage of the population living below a living wage. This by itself denies your "solution".

And considering we weren't discussing public policy but whether or not the claim that everyone can just follow the work, you really should learn to focus on the point. If you can't actually support that side of the debate don't change the subject, simply don't get involved. The fact is that in order to invalidate the mythical claim, I don't need show a darn thing about a "significant portion". This concludes today's debate class.

Here is where the traditional family makes things so much easier. You move incrementally. Dad goes first, lives at the Y, and finds a job. Then Dad sends for Mom and the kids. Maybe they just take the bus, maybe they pack stuff into a U-Haul, but they move when there is somewhere to go.

Sadly, the traditional family is harder to maintain in our welfare system and you see fewer poor families with all the parts.

One of the beneficial things that our system of entitlements could provide would be relocation assistance. Provide sponsors in an area where jobs are available. Or work with the companies in up and coming areas to make outreaches into communities where potential employees reside. That's the thought behind all the job fairs that are held. Not all of those job fairs are looking for college grads, either.

Training through apprenticeships would be a great aid in filling that middle ground between manual labor and college grad work. There any number of potential solutions that might be good.

Let's not keep wringing our hands looking for the perfect solution, when a couple of good ones may do the trick.

Still costs money. Where does "Dad" get the money to actually make the trip? What if the difference in pay only puts them barely above the poverty line? Does he live away from his children for a few years until he finally has the money to send for them? Again, you make a ton of assumptions here that really aren't supported. I love that it seems like a feasible solution to you that we divide up traditional families while they HOPE that it will work out.

The rest of your post is an actual viable solution. Telling people they should spend money they don't have, isn't. It's nice to see a solution that recognizes that there are better ways to spend our money to make an actual safety net instead of the trap that exists now that we call welfare. By the way, apprenticeships often pay little to nothing, we'd still need to offer some support during the apprenticeship. However, I've often thought that college is over utilized. For example, I think programming should be an apprenticeship program instead of the current means of churning out incompetent people who only learned how to copy code from other people.

Still costs money. Where does "Dad" get the money to actually make the trip? What if the difference in pay only puts them barely above the poverty line? Does he live away from his children for a few years until he finally has the money to send for them? Again, you make a ton of assumptions here that really aren't supported. I love that it seems like a feasible solution to you that we divide up traditional families while they HOPE that it will work out.

Like I pointed out a couple of posts earlier, this is historically how things were done. It worked then, more or less, and it can still work, more or less. It's a alternative worth considering -- nothing more, nothing less.

Still costs money. Where does "Dad" get the money to actually make the trip? What if the difference in pay only puts them barely above the poverty line? Does he live away from his children for a few years until he finally has the money to send for them? Again, you make a ton of assumptions here that really aren't supported. I love that it seems like a feasible solution to you that we divide up traditional families while they HOPE that it will work out.so what if there were incentives to assist those that need to move to where the jobs are. say tax breaks to entities that assist in the relocation of workers to their jobs? Low interest loans strictly used for that purpose. maybe even access to agencies and programs designed to assist those less fortunate, like say... temp use of low income/halfway homes, food stamps, access to charity help... but again, for a limited time and it can only be accessed if the family moving has secured at least one job in the new area.

so what if there were incentives to assist those that need to move to where the jobs are. say tax breaks to entities that assist in the relocation of workers to their jobs? Low interest loans strictly used for that purpose. maybe even access to agencies and programs designed to assist those less fortunate, like say... temp use of low income/halfway homes, food stamps, access to charity help... but again, for a limited time and it can only be accessed if the family moving has secured at least one job in the new area.

I take it you're abandoning your claim that ALL people are capable of moving to where jobs are, no? Wise.

These are excellent suggestions. They generally don't exist right now, however.

I take it you're abandoning your claim that ALL people are capable of moving to where jobs are, no?*sigh* please show me where I said all people are capable of moving (which is different than saying that the option of moving is always there.) if you wanna keep arguing it, then we can. I would rather move on to meatier things.

These are excellent suggestions. They generally don't exist right now, however.... then perhaps we should start asking our reps and congressmen to start looking into it.

*sigh* please show me where I said all people are capable of moving (which is different than saying that the option of moving is always there.)

How is the option always there is not all people are capable?
Paradox ahoy!

Like I pointed out a couple of posts earlier, this is historically how things were done. It worked then, more or less, and it can still work, more or less. It's a alternative worth considering -- nothing more, nothing less.

It SOMETIMES worked then. It will SOMETIMES work now. As you pointed out, we need a number of solutions. The reason we pointed out that following the work is NOT a catch-all. It is precisely that mentality that prevents us from creating a variety of solutions that we can apply based on circumstances.

The solutions to poverty, hunger, pollution, etc. are rarely as simple as the mythical platitudes that we are fed. That everyone can just up and move is one of those mythical platitudes. That was the point you jumped in on.

How is the option always there is not all people are capable?
Paradox ahoy!

because, just because it's not the best, good, viable, or even possible option at the time, doesn't mean it's no longer an option. it can be a goal to make it a good, viable, or even possible option.

a bad option is still an option. Just like making a bad choice is still making a choice.

because, just because it's not the best, good, viable, or even possible option at the time, doesn't mean it's no longer an option. it can be a goal to make it a good, viable, or even possible option.

a bad option is still an option. Just like making a bad choice is still making a choice.

You realize not capable means it's not just a bad option. It's not an option.

Are you really going to sit there and defend your idiotic claim by claiming you intended for your statement to have no value whatsoever? What's next? You going to try to convice us you didn't know what we meant by the word "is"?

*sigh* please show me where I said all people are capable of moving (which is different than saying that the option of moving is always there.) if you wanna keep arguing it, then we can. I would rather move on to meatier things.

... then perhaps we should start asking our reps and congressmen to start looking into it.

This is just stupid. You're claiming that just because people aren't capable of doing it doesn't mean it's not an option.

Then I declare that you had the option of being born a raccoon. Of course, it bastardizes the meaning of the word option seeing as you can't actually choose that option and it's impossible. Of course, it would a nonsensical and ridiculous point. But, hey, why would you want to present posts that resemble any known form of sense?

because, just because it's not the best, good, viable, or even possible option at the time, doesn't mean it's no longer an option. it can be a goal to make it a good, viable, or even possible option.

a bad option is still an option. Just like making a bad choice is still making a choice.

It is only an option if it is possible. According to your use of the word, I have the option of having a vasectomy, even though I don't have a penis. It's a ridiculous use of the word.

I think what Junii is trying, somewhat misguidedly and confusingly, to say, is that while not everyone can, RIGHT NOW have the option to move, it is his belief that moving can BECOME an option, for anybody, if those people make the right choices and plan with that goal in mind.

Which is to say that not everyone can pack up and go when they want to, but it is POSSIBLE to make that happen.

His statements make a lot more sense when viewed from that context.

I disagree, but at least that's his argument, rather than saying things like please show me where I said all people are capable of moving (which is different than saying that the option of moving is always there.)

I feel alot of blacks just seem to work agiest them selfs. Between "rap" where they discrase them selfs and ues racest term they don't like to hear, and alot of blacks who would rather complain about how the "white men puttes us down", they just don't move forword.

I know it's more culteral then anything, and that there is still white who hate blacks. But there's also still black who hate white, and they don't keep us down. You can't just go and give blacks specal treatment caues there black, they sould be able to get up and go like anyone eals.


It's the "black culter" that's the problem.

You realize not capable means it's not just a bad option. It's not an option.

Are you really going to sit there and defend your idiotic claim by claim you made a statement that doesn't mean anything at all? What's next? You going to try to convice us you didn't know what we meant by the word "is"?
and you also realize that you are admiting that the option of moving is not the great American Myth that Neo Art said (still awaiting the qualifiers that you INSIST are there.) I never said that moving was always the best, good or viable option. but please, feel free to continue and keep the argument going.

genius, you just did away with the entire study of sociology in a handful of keyboard strokes.
Yes I did. Sociology is a pile of crap.
no, they're real. They're just silly for not living in his perfectly rational world where things like social pressure and culturalization exist.
They are silly for ignoring reason, yes. And they're probably real.

I think what Junii is trying, somewhat misguidedly and confusingly, to say, is that while not everyone can, RIGHT NOW have the option to move, it is his belief that moving can BECOME an option, for anybody, if those people make the right choices and plan with that goal in mind.

Which is to say that not everyone can pack up and go when they want to, but it is POSSIBLE to make that happen.

His statements make a lot more sense when viewed from that context.

I disagree, but at least that's his argument, rather than saying things like

The problem is that we've given him opportunity after opportunity to actually make that point. See, we were describing the myth which he said is not a myth. What he specifically stated was that it's not a myth. In saying so, whether he intended to or not, he said it was a viable option. This nonsensical backpeddling is exactly that.

So we're left with JuNii now claims to have not said anything useful supporting the myth, since the myth is that everyone is capable of moving and he admits not everyone is capable of moving (after pages of ridiculous arguments that the impossible is an option).

and you also realize that you are admiting that the option of moving is not the great American Myth that Neo Art said (still awaiting the qualifiers that you INSIST are there.) I never said that moving was always the best, good or viable option. but please, feel free to continue and keep the argument going.

It is a myth. The Great American myth is that people can up and move and that is exactly how it was stated. Regardless of what you said, you've since shown exactly why it IS a myth.

And comparing national unemployment rate does nothing for you. I think you'll find in places with very low unemployment, everyone is employed.

Try looking at places in the inner city. You know...places with unemployment considerably higher. It's the great american myth that if jobs aren't in one place that you can just pack up and go somewhere else.

Hmmmm... here is NA's statement.

Reading it, it appears he was talking about people CAN do. As such, your admission, JuNii, that not every CAN do it shows that is exactly the myth as claimed by Arthais.

EDIT: By turning your own statement into nonsense you've turned your entire argument into a strawman. So which is it? Is your argument wrong because what you stated is false or is your argument wrong because you don't understand what you were replying to? I could care less which is true, because in both cases your argument is wrong.

and you also realize that you are admiting that the option of moving is not the great American Myth that Neo Art said (still awaiting the qualifiers that you INSIST are there.)

Neo Art has made it clear that the "myth" is that everyone can just move to follow the jobs. If you admit that it is impossible for some people, then you are agreeing with the original statement.

The problem is that we've given him opportunity after opportunity to actually make that point. See, we were describing the myth which he said is not a myth. What he specifically stated was that it's not a myth. In saying so, whether he intended to or not, he said it was a viable option. This nonsensical backpeddling is exactly that.err. no. you were tying to prove the statement that moving was ALWAYS a myth. just like you were tying to say that what I was saying was that the option of moving was ALWAYS a good, viable option.

So we're left with JuNii now claims to have not said anything useful supporting the myth, since the myth is that everyone is capable of moving and he admits not everyone is capable of moving (after pages of ridiculous arguments that the impossible is an option).wrong again jocabia. I never said that the myth was that everyone of capable of moving is wrong. only that the myth of moving being an option is wrong. you seemed to be mis-reading alot.

Neo Art got my point. but you and alot of others seem to keep missing the target.

now, can we do what cat-tribe asked and stop the nitpicking or we can continue if you wish.

err. no. you were tying to prove the statement that moving was ALWAYS a myth. just like you were tying to say that what I was saying was that the option of moving was ALWAYS a good, viable option.

You do realize that you are the ONLY person who has used the "good, viable" descriptor, right? No one else has suggested anything like it.

Meanwhile, I'd still really like to know how I have the option of getting a vasectomy, despite not having a penis.

err. no. you were tying to prove the statement that moving was ALWAYS a myth. just like you were tying to say that what I was saying was that the option of moving was ALWAYS a good, viable option.

Ha. I was. Please, quote me. I'll wait. I have repeatedly stated that the myth is that EVERYONE can do it.

Are you honestly claiming I argued that no one can EVER move? That's the dumbest thing yet.

What I said you said was that moving was always an option and that viable is implied? Everyone else has stated the same thing. You keep up with this nonsense. It's really helping your credibility.



wrong again jocabia. I never said that the myth was that everyone of capable of moving is wrong. only that the myth of moving being an option is wrong. you seemed to be mis-reading alot.

Hmmm... let's see.



And comparing national unemployment rate does nothing for you. I think you'll find in places with very low unemployment, everyone is employed.

Try looking at places in the inner city. You know...places with unemployment considerably higher. It's the great american myth that if jobs aren't in one place that you can just pack up and go somewhere else.
for a myth, it's strikenly real.

Hmmm... I misread you claiming that the myth that if jobs aren't in one place anyone can just pack up and move is "strikenly real" despite your explicit statement. I suppose that it's possible that I wrongly assumed that what you type is what you mean. Sorry for giving you that credit.

Keep on squirming, kiddo. Again, it gives you tons of credibility.




Neo Art got my point. but you and alot of others seem to keep missing the target.

now, can we do what cat-tribe asked and stop the nitpicking or we can continue if you wish.

Nope. Admit you're wrong. If your point was what you claimed then you've been arguing a strawman for several pages and your point is equally fallacious.

Poverty causes crime primarily in two ways:

1) By making crime more attractive in a cost-benefit analysis. A poor person has less to lose by getting in legal trouble than a middle-class person, and also has more to gain, relatively.
Nice one. Okay, poverty causes crime in this way.
2) By putting people under constant stress, both the stress of having to get by and also the stress of having to struggle while others have easy lives, and of having to be looked down upon by well-to-do society.
The relative position of others isn't relevant.
The perception of having no apparent successful future also makes crime more amenable.
I would take this as a corollary of the first point.
Also, the high degree of criminality among poor people makes crime seem more common, and by extension more acceptable and reasonable.
This is absurd. Whether something is reasonable has nothing to do with how common it is among one's peer group.

Okay, so poverty encourages crime by making incarceration less threatening a penalty. The easy solution would be to make the penality more of a deterrent.

But, even though poverty induces crime, crime also induces poverty (by removing people from the workforce, and thus denying them the time needed to get experience and earn more).

You do realize that you are the ONLY person who has used the "good, viable" descriptor, right? No one else has suggested anything like it.

Meanwhile, I'd still really like to know how I have the option of getting a vasectomy, despite not having a penis.

I used the term viable when it became clear he was trying to pretend he meant that despite the fact that it's impossible it's an option. I said it's implied. He claims that option just means, um, actually, based on his usage, I don't know how to describe the meaning of option.

Option: a thing that may or may not be possible and may or may not be something you are capable of choosing.

Apparently, saying "I didn't have any options" is NEVER true, because you ALWAYS have the option of turning into a bird and flying away.

I never used the "good" descriptor. He's been trying to add that in for pages and I just keep ignoring it because his entire argument is a strawman.

It SOMETIMES worked then. It will SOMETIMES work now. As you pointed out, we need a number of solutions. The reason we pointed out that following the work is NOT a catch-all. It is precisely that mentality that prevents us from creating a variety of solutions that we can apply based on circumstances.

The solutions to poverty, hunger, pollution, etc. are rarely as simple as the mythical platitudes that we are fed. That everyone can just up and move is one of those mythical platitudes. That was the point you jumped in on.

Of course we need a variety of solutions. The problem is that none of them are guaranteed to bring success. The biggest flaw in this whole discussion is that we dismiss plans requiring individual action because they don't guarantee success. Yet we applaud plans that require government intervention, as if that were an ironclad guarantee of success.

The problem, and it isn't a fatal problem, with solutions that rely mainly on individual initiative and determination is that they will inevitably require some sacrifice. The government sponsored plans may require some sacrifice, as well, but nothing near what was required before the government became a panacea for all ills.

My grandparents made the sacrifice of separation to come to the United States. Maybe that's why I believe that it's a reasonable course of action. I don't know how your family solved their debt-to-income problems, but it seems to have left you with the impression that no individual should ever be expected to help themselves.

On the other hand, if you're just parsing words for your entertainment...

It's the "black culter" that's the problem.

There's a black ann culter now?

And comparing national unemployment rate does nothing for you. I think you'll find in places with very low unemployment, everyone is employed.

Try looking at places in the inner city. You know...places with unemployment considerably higher. It's the great american myth that if jobs aren't in one place that you can just pack up and go somewhere else.

Hmmmm... here is NA's statement.

Reading it, it appears he was talking about people CAN do. As such, your admission, JuNii, that not every CAN do it shows that is exactly the myth as claimed by Arthais.
oh really? again I provided some personal examples of people who did pack up and move when there weren't jobs in the area they were living in. which proves that people can move to where the jobs are. now, are you again, going to aruge that NA is focusing on people who can't afford to move? he didn't focus on people who can't afford to move when he called moving a myth.

Neo Art has made it clear that the "myth" is that everyone can just move to follow the jobs. If you admit that it is impossible for some people, then you are agreeing with the original statement.and people can. but if NA is trying to say is that the myth is "Moving to where the jobs are is the cure to unemployement." That I'll agree with.

It is a myth. The Great American myth is that people can up and move and that is exactly how it was stated. Regardless of what you said, you've since shown exactly why it IS a myth.and that's where I proved that it's not a myth. my unemployed friends "upped and moved" to where the jobs are, and some were unemployed for YEARS. now are you going to re-add the non exsistant qualifier of no money/posessions/unable to do anything? something that wasn't mentioned in NA's statement yet you claim was there?

what? unemployed means only the POOR and DESTITUTE? someone looses their job and poof, no savings, no possessions, no nothing for them to work with? unable to ask for any assistance from anyone?

but you know what. if the only way to do what cat tribe asks and refocus on finding some suggestions to end the problems. fine. I AM WRONG. JOCABIA IS RIGHT. NO ONE CAN MOVE TO WHERE JOBS ARE. MOVING IS NEVER-EVER AN OPTION AND THAT IT'S A MYTH THAT IT IS EVER CONSIDERED AN OPTION. MOVING IS ONLY DONE BY THOSE WITH MONEY AND JOBS, THUS ANYONE WHO JUST BECAME UNEMPLOYED IS STUCK WHERE THEY ARE.

happy?

Of course we need a variety of solutions. The problem is that none of them are guaranteed to bring success. The biggest flaw in this whole discussion is that we dismiss plans requiring individual action because they don't guarantee success. Yet we applaud plans that require government intervention, as if that were an ironclad guarantee of success.

No, I don't dismiss plans that require individual action. They have the largest success rate. The point is that we can't use the potential for individual action as an excuse to completely nix government intervention.

I wholly agree (and most people do) with a variety of solutions, particularly solutions that encourage individual actions to the greatest extent possible. The problem with most current systems is that they pretty much ties the hands of the individual if the person accepts a handout.



The problem, and it isn't a fatal problem, with solutions that rely mainly on individual initiative and determination is that they will inevitably require some sacrifice. The government sponsored plans may require some sacrifice, as well, but nothing near what was required before the government became a panacea for all ills.

I agree with this as well. I think the biggest problem among Americans today (read: a large percentage of Americans, not ALL) is that we fail to take responsibility for our place in the world. It's always someone else's fault and someone else's responsibility. While it is, in fact, someone else's fault at times and we need a system for dealing with such a thing (civil court), the solutions for most ills really do lie where you say they do. The government should be there to bridge the gap between human ability and human need.



My grandparents made the sacrifice of separation to come to the United States. Maybe that's why I believe that it's a reasonable course of action. I don't know how your family solved their debt-to-income problems, but it seems to have left you with the impression that no individual should ever be expected to help themselves.

On the other hand, if you're just parsing words for your entertainment...

My parents did the same in order to make a move to Florida to support my grandmother in her declining years. I don't think it's never an option. I just don't think it's always an option.

My parents entirely helped themselves. We solved our own problems with some aid from others, but none of it was expected or counted on. I've simply stated that some options are not available for some families. While we survived our poverty, what my sister endured, problems she still endures today as a result of improper care in those years, should never happen. My parents exhibited a strength that I think would be wonderful to see in everyone.

What you seem to be missing is that I was replying to the point that moving is ALWAYS an option. I pointed out that this is untrue and it is only sometimes an option. I've repeated that to you.

For example, what you said I think - "it seems to have left you with the impression that no individual should ever be expected to help themselves."

And what I actually said - "It SOMETIMES worked then. It will SOMETIMES work now."

Those are not compatable statements. The point is then and always was that SOMETIMES individual effort simply isn't enough in a number of situations. An inflexible system often fails these individuals and this is what we're discussing. The fact that we're discussing people who have exhausted their resources should not leave you with the impression that no ever asks for help BEFORE exhausting their resources, another problem a more flexible system would be better able to handle.

oh really? again I provided some personal examples of people who did pack up and move when there weren't jobs in the area they were living in. which proves that people can move to where the jobs are.

No it proves that SOME people can. And the fact that some of them had government loans available, or owned a house, effectively renders your examples moot as that's not the kind of people we're talking about.

now, are you again, going to aruge that NA is focusing on people who can't afford to move? he didn't focus on people who can't afford to move when he called moving a myth.

OK, listen closely. The only person who is saying that I, or anyone else in this thread that nobody can move, at all, ever, is you.

That's not what was said. That's not what was EVER said. What was said was in a response to the commonly held perception that unemployed people have available to them the option to move. That is the myth, that it is always an option.

And the fact that you are INSISTING that THERE IS ALWAYS THE OPTION demonstrates that this particular myth is alive and well.

and that's where I proved that it's not a myth. my unemployed friends "upped and moved" to where the jobs are, and some were unemployed for YEARS. now are you going to re-add the non exsistant qualifier of no money/posessions/unable to do anything? something that wasn't mentioned in NA's statement yet you claim was there?

Um, non existant? It was not mentioned in my statement because it was assumed given that WE JUST SPENT TWENTY PAGES ON THAT VERY TOPIC.

Obviously I"m talking about the great destitute, the living poor, the one missed paycheck from the street folks. Of course my statement is going to be bound to the confines of the discussion.

what? unemployed means only the POOR and DESTITUTE? someone looses their job and poof, no savings, no possessions, no nothing for them to work with? unable to ask for any assistance from anyone?

No, of course not. However we WERE talking about the poor and destitute, so I'm not sure where your objection lies.

but you know what. if the only way to do what cat tribe asks and refocus on finding some suggestions to end the problems. fine. I AM WRONG. JOCABIA IS RIGHT. NO ONE CAN MOVE TO WHERE JOBS ARE. MOVING IS NEVER-EVER AN OPTION AND THAT IT'S A MYTH THAT IT IS EVER CONSIDERED AN OPTION. MOVING IS ONLY DONE BY THOSE WITH MONEY AND JOBS, THUS ANYONE WHO JUST BECAME UNEMPLOYED IS STUCK WHERE THEY ARE.

happy?


Probably not because he never said moving was NEVER an option. He said moving is not ALWAYS an option. And the myth is that it is, always, an option. A myth you are propogating.

oh really? again I provided some personal examples of people who did pack up and move when there weren't jobs in the area they were living in. which proves that people can move to where the jobs are. now, are you again, going to aruge that NA is focusing on people who can't afford to move? he didn't focus on people who can't afford to move when he called moving a myth.

Again, your problems with reading comprehension are your problems. He didn't say that no one ever has the option. He was talking about it being the option that one can just move. One is a generic term meaning "any individual". Since he didn't say some or a percentage or some other qualifier then it's clear the myth he referred to is a blanket statement. The fact that you said it is ALWAYS option shows that you originally recognized that the myth he referred to was on that blankets.

It's absurd to claim that he was saying it's never an option.


and people can. but if NA is trying to say is that the myth is "Moving to where the jobs are is the cure to unemployement." That I'll agree with.
He was saying and it's clear from the context is that not everyone can do it. That he was talking about no one can do is the most absurd suggestion in a series of absurd suggestions.


and that's where I proved that it's not a myth. my unemployed friends "upped and moved" to where the jobs are, and some were unemployed for YEARS. now are you going to re-add the non exsistant qualifier of no money/posessions/unable to do anything? something that wasn't mentioned in NA's statement yet you claim was there?

Ha. You proved nothing. It's a strawman. It has nothing to do with what he actually said in context. I can't speak for all languages but in English the meaning of words is set by context. To claim that in context his statements mean what you claim is not just a little bit ridiculous.


what? unemployed means only the POOR and DESTITUTE? someone looses their job and poof, no savings, no possessions, no nothing for them to work with? unable to ask for any assistance from anyone?

No. Again, the only one saying ONLY or ALL or ALWAYs or the like is you and the myth. What I said is that some unemployed are poor and destitute which is why the idea that they could up and move is a myth.


but you know what. if the only way to do what cat tribe asks and refocus on finding some suggestions to end the problems. fine. I AM WRONG. JOCABIA IS RIGHT. NO ONE CAN MOVE TO WHERE JOBS ARE. MOVING IS NEVER-EVER AN OPTION AND THAT IT'S A MYTH THAT IT IS EVER CONSIDERED AN OPTION. MOVING IS ONLY DONE BY THOSE WITH MONEY AND JOBS, THUS ANYONE WHO JUST BECAME UNEMPLOYED IS STUCK WHERE THEY ARE.

happy?

Again, keep up with the strawman. No one ever said or implied that no one can move to where jobs are. The only blanket statements are the statement that was called a myth because it was a blanket statement and yours. I have never claim that any of these things apply to all people or no people or always apply or never apply. To do so would be to fall for the same lack of logic that you fell for.

See, right here is where you changed your statement "MOVING IS NEVER-EVER AN OPTION AND THAT IT'S A MYTH THAT IT IS EVER CONSIDERED AN OPTION. " You do realize that if you's have said that it is sometimes an option, which is what you are stating here, then you'd have not run into any opposition. You said it was always an option. It needn't be never an option in order for you to be wrong. The fact that you continue to throw up strawmen is evidence you recognize the folly of your statments.

I've repeatedly agreed that it is SOMETIMES an option. I protested to it being ALWAYS an option. If you are going to argue with ghosts why don't you do that and save us the trouble.

And the myth is that it is, always, an option. A myth you are propogating.

I humbly disagree. I would venture to say that he has done an excellent job of making that postion appear more absurd than we ever could.

I humbly disagree. I would venture to say that he has done an excellent job of making that postion appear more absurd than we ever could.

ok, then how about "defending"?

Yes I did. Sociology is a pile of crap.

They are silly for ignoring reason, yes. And they're probably real.

Excuse, Great Philosopher-King, but would you mind providing evidence that people follow pure reason?

I think history (and sociology) teach us that people are not always perfect rational, thus it is rather silly to act as if they are.

By the way, you never responded to my evidence of discrimination -- namely the multiple audit studies. How does your rational world explain this? (My guess is that you will assume their must be some flaw in every study that doesn't fit your world view.)

Excuse, Great Philosopher-King, but would you mind providing evidence that people follow pure reason?

I think history (and sociology) teach us that people are not always perfect rational, thus it is rather silly to act as if they are.

By the way, you never responded to my evidence of discrimination -- namely the multiple audit studies. How does your rational world explain this? (My guess is that you will assume their must be some flaw in every study that doesn't fit your world view.)

now now now, let's not go destroying Llewdor's perfectly rational universe by bringing such things as rationality into it.

and how does one fight it?

One fights racism in multiple ways. One strictly enforces civil rights laws. One takes affirmative action to see that minorities recieve equal opportunity. One works to end poverty and disenfranchisement.

There isn't one simple answer, but recognizing that racism (both past and present) is part of the problem is an important first step.

Especially when there are those out there willing to play the "Race" card so quickely and at the first hint of percived Racisim.

Always handing to blame a problem on those that call attention to it.

Is racism sometimes overplayed? Yes. So is so-called reverse discrimination.

so far, any plan to remove ethinicity from the normal way of thinking is met with "Burying your head in the sand and ignoring the problem" so if trying to change people's perceptions of what's important in others is that, how do you remove racisim?

There is a difference between trying to remove ethnicity from the normal way of thinking and ignoring the existence of ethnicity altogether. The second just lets the problems fester.

but Poverty, Gang-violence, etc isn't just minorities, it's the community. and while we're focusing on that, how does targeting minorities help the community? shouldn't it be targetting the community? getting the gangs to be less destructive and more constructive, getting people to care about their community... that shouldn't be a race issue, but an issue in community spirit and pride.

We definitely should target communities and the disadvantaged for help.

That is not mutual exclusive with fighting racism.

and how can you tell that the employer is hiring due to race and not to skills or even chance? just because he flipped a coin and it so happens to be the whiteman, does that make him more racist than if he chose the black man because he was black over the white man?

First of all, I point you to the audit studies that show blatant, wide-spread discrimination in the workplace.

Secondly, the statistics I gathered in the OP aren't just coincidence. Blacks are disadvantaged across the board.

so what if we did address the issue of Low-Income communities reguardless of Race/Ethnicity. Wouldn't that, be a better way to fight and remove any racism that is hiding under the issues? Especially when everyone in that Low-Income community is being helped reguardless of their ethinicity.

Again, helping low-income communities is a great idea and would help to reduce the legacy of racism. But there is nothing mutually exclusive about fighting poverty and racism.

now consider this.

you have a community of disenfranchised people. Instead of telling them "Get a Job" you have programs to help them "Get that job" say, on-the-job training w/ minimum wage with businesses in exchange for tax breaks or other benefits. That training is then added to their work experience giving them an edge in getting better jobs. Not to mention that their training can be used to get them a permament posistion in the company that is training them.

you have similar tax brakes and other incentives for businesses to assist in the restructuring and rebuilding of their communities. say cleaning up the streets, programs to turn destructive gangs into constructive ones. tougher police force and neighborhood watch to get those drug dealers and criminal punks out of the neighborhood and centers to get the drug addicts off of the drugs (and it could even be tied in with the Job training program.)

Possible outcome: you have a community of people that realize that they can take control of their lives. they have the confidence to reach for bigger and better goals, and hopefully, you have a community that sees its members as neighbors in a community and not members of so-and-so ethnicity.

These are fine ideas except for the part where you insist we act as if race and racism don't exist. Rose-colored blindfolds won't solve the problems.

Or, by being held down by profiteers who can make bucks on it.

Do you have any evidence to prove this thesis, or just your own racially-tinged judgment?

Asians have been victimized in thi country and more recently than any other except possibly the Irish. At the turn of the century Chinese workers were exploited in mines out west, people of Japanese ancestry were interred in camps as recently as 1945, and even now it's not uncommon to hear racial slurs about Asians, especially Vietnamese.

Was that worse than slavery? No, but at the same time very little has been actively done to undo that damage, at least on the part of the majority.

Um. Ever heard of segregation? Legal segregation enforced by harsh violence ended only relatively recently in this country.

On the other hand, the black community has been exploited for the gain of a handful of individuals who pretend to be working for racial equality but in actuality benefit from racial tensions and do ver little to reduce them. In turn, that enables them to blame other races (not only whites, but also Jews as a classic example) for the plight of those who are taught, from birth, to believe that they have no options.

I see. It's not racism that the problem. It's the people that fight racism that are the problem. If they would just go away, no problem.

You might note that most major civil rights workers and groups aim not just to fight racism but to fight poverty, inner-city crime, and other problems faced by minorities. The disadvantage faced by blacks in this country is due in part, but not entirely, to the legacy of past discrimination and the effects of current discrimination. Civil rights leaders seek to fight all of the cause of this disadvantage. And also to help those of other races that are disadvantaged.

I'd venture to say that there are quite a few inner city youth who literally have feelings of greater hopelessness than even their enslaved ancestors. They deserve better than that.

Your sentiment is noble, but I think I disagree with your image of the hope-filled slave.

*snip*

As someone who used to think very much along the lines of JuNii, let me take this opportunity to thank those who helped me to see the folly of pretending race and ethnicity don't exist. You've been a huge factor in my education on racism (despite having been a part of multicultural communities my entire life) and on such programs as Affirmative Action. I must admit I fell victim to the misunderstandings many have about this program.

There clearly is no simple solution and solutions that wish to ignore racism are almost exclusively simple. I must say that I greatly appreciate all the time and effort that went in to explaining the problem as such to me.

As someone who used to think very much along the lines of JuNii, let me take this opportunity to thank those who helped me to see the folly of pretending race and ethnicity don't exist. You've been a huge factor in my education on racism (despite having been a part of multicultural communities my entire life) and on such programs as Affirmative Action. I must admit I fell victim to the misunderstandings many have about this program.

There clearly is no simple solution and solutions that wish to ignore racism are almost exclusively simple. I must say that I greatly appreciate all the time and effort that went in to explaining the problem as such to me.

*blushes*

Thank you. My pleasure.

Your sentiment is noble, but I think I disagree with your image of the hope-filled slave.

But, but, I saw in this movie once this really happy slave that used to tell stories filled with hope and wisdom and used to even break into song once in a while. Now if that guy wasn't enjoying his life, then who is? If only we'd have kept them slaves instead of holding them down with expectations of equality and freedom. Silly, silly, civil rights activists.

EDIT: By the way, if anyone happens to recognize that movie, I happen to love it. I wish it were available in the US.

*blushes*

Thank you. My pleasure.

To be clear, it's wasn't only you or only NS, but people who have patiently and repetitively forced me to defend my stance over and over until my reasoning fell apart deserve my gratitude. I strive hard to constantly better myself, and I can't think of anything that helps in that endeavor than a realistic view of the US and the world.

Is it telling that as I've come to understand the realities of the world better that the accusations that I am a liberal have increased?

{snip}
if you still want to argue definitions of "Options" and how they apply, let's not threadjack this topic, but go here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12649052#post12649052) instead.

if you still want to argue definitions of "Options" and how they apply, let's not threadjack this topic, but go here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12649052#post12649052) instead.

You continue the strawman. None of what you argue in the other thread has ANYTHING to do with what was said. The problem with your argument is and always will be that you argued with someone protesting a blanket statement. You made a blanket statement of similar meaning to the "myth" claiming the myth was not a myth but real and then stretched the statement to nonsensical ends.

No amount of twisting and turning will change that you either A) argued a strawman for about a dozen pages OR B) said something that is provably false. Either way, I don't care which. Your statements are nonsensical and fallacious.

Even you don't agree with your original claims which is why instead of saying what I said "it is not always an option" you changed it to claiming I wanted you to agree "it is never an option". The fact that you changed it to this is recognition that you can't defend your idiotic claims without trying to make it seem like mine are equally idiotic. This isn't about your definition of "option". This is about your defense of a myth, so called because it is untrue.

Of course we need a variety of solutions. The problem is that none of them are guaranteed to bring success. The biggest flaw in this whole discussion is that we dismiss plans requiring individual action because they don't guarantee success. Yet we applaud plans that require government intervention, as if that were an ironclad guarantee of success.

I don't see that at all. I think the point that many people have been making is that relying solely on plans of individual action won't cut it. There are situations in which a person is not going to be able to get out without some sort of help. There are situations in which a person is not going to see a solution without guidance. There are situations in which an attitude is so socially and culturally ingrained that it must be actively fought. And so on...

From what I've seen, most people see government programs, not as a first resort, but as a last one - something a person can go to when they see no other way to get out of a hole.

The problem I have with many government programs is that they don't focus on that - getting out of the hole. They focus on providing sustenance and shelter (both, of course, important) while ignoring the situations that caused poverty in the first place. This can lead to people who rely on the system with no lifeline to get out of it and offers little incentive for those few who are perfectly happy to rely on the system to stop doing so.

One fights racism in multiple ways. One strictly enforces civil rights laws. One takes affirmative action to see that minorities recieve equal opportunity. One works to end poverty and disenfranchisement. however, how does one determine when the action taken is based on Race and not say... chance or other factors that doesn't involve Race?

for example, does a group of Hawaiians beating a Korean person consitute a Racial beating?

if two people are both equally qualified to work at a job, but the employer chooses the white person, does that make it a Racial Issue?

There isn't one simple answer, but recognizing that racism (both past and present) is part of the problem is an important first step.and it comes back to how does one fight racism without becoming a racist? we all know racism exsits, but how does

There is a difference between trying to remove ethnicity from the normal way of thinking and ignoring the existence of ethnicity altogether. The second just lets the problems fester.so how can one remove Ethnicity the "normal way"? what is the Normal Way? Lawsuits? making laws that define a person by their Race, Skin-color, and/or ethnicity?

if you raise someone to not think of people as African-American or Black, or Japanese... is that ignoring the problem or removing Ethnicity from the normal way of thinking?

We definitely should target communities and the disadvantaged for help.

That is not mutual exclusive with fighting racism.However, it can be a start. To get people looking at the disadvantaged as "disadvantaged" and not "African-American, Hispanic, or whatever."

First of all, I point you to the audit studies that show blatant, wide-spread discrimination in the workplace.

Secondly, the statistics I gathered in the OP aren't just coincidence. Blacks are disadvantaged across the board. and not hispanics? are Blacks the ONLY disadvantaged group?

Again, helping low-income communities is a great idea and would help to reduce the legacy of racism. But there is nothing mutually exclusive about fighting poverty and racism.except for the past 40 years, we've fighting Racism head on. yet you have claimed that not alot has changed even with Affirmative Action and laws currently in place. so keep doing something that is slow going, not producing noticable results... stay the course? or do we switch tactics? Concentrate on the low-income communities to give the next generation a better chance at obtaining those better paying jobs. If the majority of those communities are African-American, Hispanic American, or Andorian American, they will recive the same help as would any program that is targetting one ethnicity... maybe more. If we secure their base level, then we will be hitting Racism on two sides, instead of just 'head-on'. the playing field can be leveled without the perception of "reverse racism"

These are fine ideas except for the part where you insist we act as if race and racism don't exist. Rose-colored blindfolds won't solve the problems. and how is what I have proposed "ignoring racism"?

because I am not specifically saying "Help the African Americans"? if, your presented studies, are showing that these low-income communities are majority African Americans, how is targetting Low-Income Communities ignoring racism... especially if those people are included in the communities that are being helped?

however, how does one determine when the action taken is based on Race and not say... chance or other factors that doesn't involve Race?

for example, does a group of Hawaiians beating a Korean person consitute a Racial beating?

if two people are both equally qualified to work at a job, but the employer chooses the white person, does that make it a Racial Issue?

*sigh*

This is a host of red herrings and non-sequiturs.

1. When one can determine an action is based on racism, then civil rights laws can be applied to correct/punish/retribute/etc.

2. It is because racism can escape easy indentification and yet is pervasive that simply enforcing laws against it is insufficient. That is why we must take affirmative action against racism and the legacy of racism.

3. What really is the point of your questions? To prove you can't prove racism?

and it comes back to how does one fight racism without becoming a racist? we all know racism exsits, but how does

1. When you say "we all know racism exists" you are making an assertion that isn't always true on NSG. I had to make this thread simply to prove that blacks are disadvantaged and still got questioned. No one has addressed the audit studies and other more direct evidence of racism.

2. Affirmative action against racism is not merely what you think of in terms of preference-type programs. I mean literally taking affirmative actions.

3. There is nothing racist about fighting racism. That you confuse the two is your problem.

so how can one remove Ethnicity the "normal way"? what is the Normal Way? Lawsuits? making laws that define a person by their Race, Skin-color, and/or ethnicity?

"the normal way" was your phrase not mine. I'm not sure why you question it now.

However, it can be a start. To get people looking at the disadvantaged as "disadvantaged" and not "African-American, Hispanic, or whatever."

1. How do you suggest we accomplish this feat? Just telling people to ignore race won't cut it.

2. I've shown evidence that blacks as a group are disadvantaged. I've also shown evidence that this is in part due to current racism. Simply fighting poverty or unemployment would help blacks, but would not by itself cure that racism.

and not hispanics? are Blacks the ONLY disadvantaged group?

I never said any such thing. I merely gathered evidence that blacks are disadvantaged. I know that other groups are also, but that isn't excluded by my point. I still think the fact that people can even argue that blacks aren't disadvantaged or that that disadvantage is at least partially due to racism is ridiculous.

except for the past 40 years, we've fighting Racism head on. yet you have claimed that not alot has changed even with Affirmative Action and laws currently in place. so keep doing something that is slow going, not producing noticable results... stay the course? or do we switch tactics? Concentrate on the low-income communities to give the next generation a better chance at obtaining those better paying jobs.

1. I never said anything of the sort. I believe we are making progress.

2. Again, you seem to assume a multual exclusivity of tactics that is not the case.

If the majority of those communities are African-American, Hispanic American, or Andorian American, they will recive the same help as would any program that is targetting one ethnicity... maybe more. If we secure their base level, then we will be hitting Racism on two sides, instead of just 'head-on'.

Um. I fully support giving aid to disadvantaged communities. That along with fighting racism. That is hitting racism on more than one side.

the playing field can be leveled without the perception of "reverse racism"

You seem much more concerned about the perception (however unfounded) of "reverse racism" than with the actuality of real racism.

and how is what I have proposed "ignoring racism"?

because I am not specifically saying "Help the African Americans"? if, your presented studies, are showing that these low-income communities are majority African Americans, how is targetting Low-Income Communities ignoring racism... especially if those people are included in the communities that are being helped?

Again, I fully support targetting low-income communities. But that only indirectly fights racism.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what types of programs you would support versus what I would support, but without being explicit about your assumptions.

So far, I have no problem with the suggestions you make to fight poverty and unemployment, but they do not by themselves go far enough to fight racism.

Sorry if I'm cutting in, but...

however, how does one determine when the action taken is based on Race and not say... chance or other factors that doesn't involve Race?

for example, does a group of Hawaiians beating a Korean person consitute a Racial beating?

if two people are both equally qualified to work at a job, but the employer chooses the white person, does that make it a Racial Issue?

There are numerous ways to tell if racism is a factor. Is there a history of racist remarks in the workplace, for instance? In the case of someone being fired, were racial slurs used? It's usually the surrounding circumstances that determine whether or not the act is 'racial'.

and it comes back to how does one fight racism without becoming a racist? we all know racism exsits, but how does

Because you're labouring under the notion that Affirmative Action is 'racist'. Sure, it deals with the issue of race. But you seem to want to deal with the entire forest, when the symptoms appear to affect specific types of trees.

so how can one remove Ethnicity the "normal way"? what is the Normal Way? Lawsuits? making laws that define a person by their Race, Skin-color, and/or ethnicity?

if you raise someone to not think of people as African-American or Black, or Japanese... is that ignoring the problem or removing Ethnicity from the normal way of thinking?

I'm thinking we're mixing up the meaning of 'ethnicity' here...

However, it can be a start. To get people looking at the disadvantaged as "disadvantaged" and not "African-American, Hispanic, or whatever."

You tend to want to avoid the studies that prove discrimination is taking place.

and not hispanics? are Blacks the ONLY disadvantaged group?

To be fair, the OP is only dealing with Blacks. Undoubtedly there are many disadvantaged people.

except for the past 40 years, we've fighting Racism head on. yet you have claimed that not alot has changed even with Affirmative Action and laws currently in place. so keep doing something that is slow going, not producing noticable results... stay the course? or do we switch tactics? Concentrate on the low-income communities to give the next generation a better chance at obtaining those better paying jobs. If the majority of those communities are African-American, Hispanic American, or Andorian American, they will recive the same help as would any program that is targetting one ethnicity... maybe more. If we secure their base level, then we will be hitting Racism on two sides, instead of just 'head-on'. the playing field can be leveled without the perception of "reverse racism"

Why not social assistance and Affirmative Action?

and how is what I have proposed "ignoring racism"?

because I am not specifically saying "Help the African Americans"? if, your presented studies, are showing that these low-income communities are majority African Americans, how is targetting Low-Income Communities ignoring racism... especially if those people are included in the communities that are being helped?

Because racial discrimination in the workplace is happening, and you don't seem to want to touch on that issue.

*sigh*

Beat me to it, and much more eloquently I might add.

There are numerous ways to tell if racism is a factor. Is there a history of racist remarks in the workplace, for instance? In the case of someone being fired, were racial slurs used? It's usually the surrounding circumstances that determine whether or not the act is 'racial'.


To extend your point:

TCT has repeatedly pointed out that we often times in law examine motive and circumstances, not only in cases involving race. This is really no different. It's interesting that people always say it's impossible to determine intent when we so often do exactly that. An example often given by TCT is the crime of murder versus manslaughter or simply an accident.

Excuse, Great Philosopher-King, but would you mind providing evidence that people follow pure reason?
I have no reason to believe they do. I suspect they do not.

But I also think they're capable to following pure reason and choose not to do so. If they're not capable of reason, then they fail a fundamental test of sentience and I pay them no heed.
I think history (and sociology) teach us that people are not always perfect rational, thus it is rather silly to act as if they are.
Again, I'm well aware people don't act rationally. I think they should be encouraged to act rationally.

Irrational behaviour is pointless and wholly unpredictable - it leads only to chaos.
By the way, you never responded to my evidence of discrimination -- namely the multiple audit studies. How does your rational world explain this? (My guess is that you will assume their must be some flaw in every study that doesn't fit your world view.)
As I said in post #7 of this thread, the audit studies you provided were the only evidence of discriminition in the original post.

That said, I'd like to see these studies in greater detail. If fewer black applicants were interviewed, how did the employers know the people were black in order to discriminate against them? Without an interview, I've never met a job applicant.

[snipped to keep to the meat of the problem. ;) you don't mind would you?]
Um. I fully support giving aid to disadvantaged communities. That along with fighting racism. That is hitting racism on more than one side. and just to clarify, my Ideas are not to STOP current programs and affirmative action, or to replace them but to work along side them.

Again, I fully support targetting low-income communities. But that only indirectly fights racism. and what's wrong with indirectly fighting racism while also fighting it directly? as long as the focus doesn't narrow to exclude anyone other than their financial standing, it would be another tool in the fight against racism. one that attacks a side that racists will find near impossible to defend.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what types of programs you would support versus what I would support, but without being explicit about your assumptions.I think the misunderstanding is that I am excluding other ideas and programs either currently in place or being planned out here. I am not. what I am suggesting is only focusing more on the low-income/under developed communities that are there. while working in conjunction with those programs designed to combat racism, people will get the help they need and possibly support from those who would normally NOT support Affirmative Action or similar programs.

So far, I have no problem with the suggestions you make to fight poverty and unemployment, but they do not by themselves go far enough to fight racism. the problem with confronting racism head on is that you have to confront that person's way of thinking.

trying to tell them that their way of thinking is Racist, and a majority of those people will get defensive. They will barricade themselves within their little thoughts and rationalize why their way of thinking is correct. What's the alternative... legal action? that will also solidify people's thought modes and narrow their way of thinking.

so change tactics. instead of putting more things to hit racisim directly, you blind side em.

you raise those disadvantaged people so that they can compete on an equal footing. Especially within the area of Education and job skills. doing that will improve the person's self esteem and give them the confidence to push themselves further.

one way to do that is a job-training program and improve living conditions in low-income/High unemployment areas.

now you're giving something to these people that racists can't take away. pride in themselves and their communities.

By encouraging more thoughts of "we the community" and less thought of "we the [color of skin/ethnicity]" you will be dealing Racism a bigger blow than you can imagine. And if you can spread that thought out into other communities, you will have less and less material for racists to build upon.

Yes, a bit fanciful, but it takes the battle to a whole new level.

Sorry if I'm cutting in, but... no problem, I'll just address issues you brought up

There are numerous ways to tell if racism is a factor. Is there a history of racist remarks in the workplace, for instance? In the case of someone being fired, were racial slurs used? It's usually the surrounding circumstances that determine whether or not the act is 'racial'. so you're looking at a string of events.
so take Micheal Richard's racial remarks. you have had people here screaming Racists for one event. when he apologied for his remarks, for alot of people, it wasn't enough.

for Micheal Richards, was there a history of him making Racists remarks? Same with Mel Gibson?

Because you're labouring under the notion that Affirmative Action is 'racist'. Sure, it deals with the issue of race. But you seem to want to deal with the entire forest, when the symptoms appear to affect specific types of trees. and what kind of symptoms are we talking about? Poverty and low income? TCT's charts also show a number of non-minority people in the same boat. how can you ignore them and say it's not racism?

I'm thinking we're mixing up the meaning of 'ethnicity' here... could be, I'm thinking ethic group.

To be fair, the OP is only dealing with Blacks. Undoubtedly there are many disadvantaged people.and my suggestion is focusing on all those disadvantaged dispite skin color or ethnic background.

Why not social assistance and Affirmative Action? why not. I never called for an end to Affirmative Action or other programs.

Because racial discrimination in the workplace is happening, and you don't seem to want to touch on that issue. let's see...
raise the standards of low income communities. give those unemployed the training to recieve job skills to improve their careers and lower the unemployment rate...

as the OP has shown, minorites hold a large percentage of unemployed and underpaid positions. so ergo, a program that is designed to help low-income/high unemployment areas will be helping more minorities get jobs and improve their employment value/education is NOT combatting racial discrimination in the workplace and communities :confused:

even combined with a federal assistance program to relocate unemployed to where the jobs are, it will still create areas where people will get the chance they deserve and, in most cases, need.



Sometimes, a maneuver is needed to hit the enemy where they least expect it. it can be at a flank, or it can be indirectly like say supply lines. by removing low-income communities and having other programs that are not focused on "minorites" but on situations, you are actually removing some of the irrational bases that racisim is built on.

why not. I never called for an end to AA or other programs.

Hrmmm. I was under the false impression that was your angle. That pretty much stifles most of my argument, because I agree that dealing with low-income in general is the first and most important issue.

Well then, if you have no intention of dismantling current programs, and you are in favour of addressing low-income issues, what the hell do we have to talk about? ;)

I guess I'm just going to go back to bickering with that trollish FreedomAndGlory character. :p

Irrational behaviour is... wholly unpredictable

How so?

The circumstances in which people will act irrationally are predictable to one degree or another, and so are the ways in which they will do so.

Hrmmm. I was under the false impression that was your angle. That pretty much stifles most of my argument, because I agree that dealing with low-income in general is the first and most important issue.

Well then, if you have no intention of dismantling current programs, and you are in favour of addressing low-income issues, what the hell do we have to talk about? ;)

I guess I'm just going to go back to bickering with that trollish FreedomAndGlory character. :p

that impression has a rather convoluted beginning...

see, here in Hawaii, there is really no real racial majority. thus I consider myself kinda colorblind. I don't think in terms of Race or skin color. and people think that is me ignoring it. actually, before NSG, there was never any situation for me where skin color or race were such important topics.

I do believe that if you remove (maybe discourage is a better word, or downplay) the emphasis of racial differences, you will produce more and more people who won't put the heavy emphasis in things like race or skin color or ethnicity in their way of thinking.

that's why you will see people accusing me of ignoring race or "waving my wand and making race dissapear." and will see that in anything I suggest that doesn't outright clash with racism directly.

I just don't put any emphasis on skin color or race. That's how I was raised. And I wonder why people insist that I change that way of thinking?

and have fun with FreedomAndGlory

that impression has a rather convoluted beginning...

see, here in Hawaii, there is really no real racial majority. thus I consider myself kinda colorblind. I don't think in terms of Race or skin color. and people think that is me ignoring it. actually, before NSG, there was never any situation for me where skin color or race were such important topics.

I do believe that if you remove (maybe discourage is a better word, or downplay) the emphasis of racial differences, you will produce more and more people who won't put the heavy emphasis in things like race or skin color or ethnicity in their way of thinking.

that's why you will see people accusing me of ignoring race or "waving my wand and making race dissapear." and will see that in anything I suggest that doesn't outright clash with racism directly.

I just don't put any emphasis on skin color or race. That's how I was raised. And I wonder why people insist that I change that way of thinking?

and have fun with FreedomAndGlory

He seems to have disapeared temporarily. I have to admit, no one's tried to label me an anti-semite before. It was fun, and worth the price of admission.

I can see where you're coming from now. Canada's a lot different. We purposely embrace multi-culturalism, have an 'amelioration' clause in the constitution, and have communities that tend to group together ethnically. Some are doing better than others. For example, our Chinese community is largely made up of Hong Kong ex-pats, so there is a large amount of income coming in to those communities to start. Most of our black community are from the Caribbean, and make up the highest proportion of the poor in certain parts of Toronto, particularly in gang-related violence. (And again, I blame this on poverty and drug-related economics.) The starting levels of income before they even come to the country, lead to some obvious disparity out of the starting block.

While racism is less of a presence than it once was, it's not completely gone either. So I support such notions as community policing with an ethnic component that can identify with the community being policed (just common sense really), and ethnic quotas for certain government positions. I don't agree with them in private industry, but believe in the government being able to step in when obvious racial discrimination is taking place.

At any rate, it's good to see where someone's perspective comes from.

I have no reason to believe they do. I suspect they do not.

But I also think they're capable to following pure reason and choose not to do so. If they're not capable of reason, then they fail a fundamental test of sentience and I pay them no heed.

how convenient. people either choose to follow pure reason or they are not persons.

Are you suggesting people make a rational choice to be irrational?

Again, I'm well aware people don't act rationally. I think they should be encouraged to act rationally.

But you've made clear you don't care why people act certain ways. It is rather hard to modify behavior if you ignore the causes.


As I said in post #7 of this thread, the audit studies you provided were the only evidence of discriminition in the original post.

You'd seem a bit wiser if I hadn't already responded to that post in post #19 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12634451&postcount=19). The sheer magnitude of the gaps between black and white suggest some discrimination, especially when one considers this nation's recent history of overt, legal discrimination. I'd also note the studies showing wage gaps are evidence of discrimination.

I also listed several audit studies in post #39 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12634901&postcount=39).



That said, I'd like to see these studies in greater detail.

I'll repeat my links to them. Knock yourself out.
Race at work (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf) (pdf)
Discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities in access to employment in the United States: Empirical findings from situation testing (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/papers/usempir/)
Culture, Information, and Screening Discrimination (http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v104y1996i3p542-71.html)
The Use of Field Experiments for Studies of Employment Discrimination: Contributions, Critiques, and Directions for the Future (http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/609/1/104) (pdf)
Discrimination in Low-Wage Labor Markets: Evidence from an Experimental Audit Study in New York City (http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50874) (pdf)
The Nature and Extent of Discrimination in the Marketplace: Evidence from the Field (http://www.arec.umd.edu/jlist/JLISTQJEDISC.pdf)(pdf)


If you find these inadequate, I can link to more.

If fewer black applicants were interviewed, how did the employers know the people were black in order to discriminate against them? Without an interview, I've never met a job applicant.

As I suspected, you haven't even seen the studies but are assuming they are flawed because they don't fit your narrow world view.

Why do I suspect that peruse the actual studies won't effect your opinion?

and just to clarify, my Ideas are not to STOP current programs and affirmative action, or to replace them but to work along side them.

Then, like Mikesburg, I am not sure what the basis of our disagreement is.

I agree your ideas are fine, I've just always contended they are insufficient.

Then, like Mikesburg, I am not sure what the basis of our disagreement is.

I agree your ideas are fine, I've just always contended they are insufficient.oh I admit they are not cure-alls. but then again, no one program will wipe out racism. but a combination of things just might do the trick.

hence the shift in attack. (maybe the wrong words... opening up a new front?)

but then, as I told Mikesburg. It could be that in that other thread, where I said I don't put emphesis on Skin color and race, people have accused me of Ignoring Race and Racism... *shrugs*

Well I know I'l lbe labeled a racist for this, but I don't realy care. I know my own heart better than anybody.

Also, my remarks are partially inspired by an op-ed written by a black journalist a few years ago who was subsequently called a race traitor for daring to speak out.

Some of the OP points are valid, but only those that directly compare people of different races who have comparable levels of experience and education. The rest of those details are products not of racial discrimination, but of the victimization mentality perpetuated by "civil rights leaders" like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Yeah, I said it.

Think about it. When these guys talk, do you hear a tone of understanding and peace? Not I. I hear them essentially telling members of the black community that ALL of their woes and troubles are a result of white oppression.

Is that what Martin Luther King preached? No. MLK envisioned a society where there were no differences between whites, blacks or anybody else. His "I had a dream" speech was a perfect example. I bet when Jesse Jackson pipes up, Dr. King is rolling over in his grave. He taught people to be proud of who they are and to be above casting themselves as victims. He taught people to have dignity, education and responsibility. In other words, his approach was to teach people to be good citizens, andlet the rest attend to itself. And it was working.

But these days, racism isn't anything like what it once was, and people like Jackson and Sharpton would be nobodies if it weren't for racial tension, and so they feed into it. They whip it up. Whenever there's an incident in the news where a black person is victimized by a white person, they rush to capitalize on it.

Just listen to a speech by one of thede idiots sometime, and when you do, ask yourself: Is this what Martin Luther King would have said? Is this encouraging the black community to work toward understanding, or is it giving people a pass to continue the cycle?

Now before you respond, I ask you to take a moment and think: Are you about to call me racist? if I tell you I'm white, am I a racist? What if I'm black? What if I'm hispanic? Does your opinion change with the color of *my* skin? If so, then keep your hypocrisy to yourself and let those for whom it makes no difference answer.

Yes he did.. but in a much more subtle, political, damaging tone (to their own selves). I'd take Malcom X over MLK anyday .. simply because he said what he meant .. bluntly.. without diluting it. But honestly I'd take Marcus Garvey over them all.

I can attest personally that I have numerous African-American friends who have been discriminated against in the workplace. One of his managers went so far as to say that they have no problem with black people because they like "Bob Marley" (Which is just...ridiculous to say)

Generally African-Americans feel as they are discriminated on the job with a good cause. They feel like they have to work twice as hard or more. From what I have seen of how white managers act, they target minority workers especially I have seen directly with my friends more. It is not just because their my friends, it is from just a third person viewpoint.

I feel that discrimination, though it is more subtle, is still very much in the workplace. However I feel at the same time some African-Americans actively look for discrimination where perhaps there is none, maybe the manager is just an ass**** in general. Though discrimination is there sometimes.

I can attest personally that I have numerous African-American friends who have been discriminated against in the workplace. One of his managers went so far as to say that they have no problem with black people because they like "Bob Marley" (Which is just...ridiculous to say)

Generally African-Americans feel as they are discriminated on the job with a good cause. They feel like they have to work twice as hard or more. From what I have seen of how white managers act, they target minority workers especially I have seen directly with my friends more. It is not just because their my friends, it is from just a third person viewpoint.

I feel that discrimination, though it is more subtle, is still very much in the workplace. However I feel at the same time some African-Americans actively look for discrimination where perhaps there is none, maybe the manager is just an ass**** in general. Though discrimination is there sometimes.

PE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uPlIaF65PM) Honest. I love it. Chuck D and KRS-1 are the modern day Marcus Garvey..s.

I got a letter from the government
The other day
I opened and read it
It said they were suckers
They wanted me for their army or whatever
Picture me given' a damn - I said never
Here is a land that never gave a damn
About a brother like me and myself
Because they never did
I wasn't wit' it, but just that very minute...
It occured to me
The suckers had authority
Cold sweatin' as I dwell in my cell
How long has it been?
They got me sittin' in the state pen
I gotta get out - but that thought was thought before
I contemplated a plan on the cell floor
I'm not a fugitive on the run
But a brother like me begun - to be another one
Public enemy servin' time - they drew the line y'all
To criticize me some crime - never the less
They could not understand that I'm a Black man
And I could never be a veteran
On the strength, the situation's unreal
I got a raw deal, so I'm goin' for the steel

They got me rottin' in the time that I'm servin'
Tellin' you what happened the same time they're throwin'
4 of us packed in a cell like slaves - oh well
The same motherfucker got us livin' is his hell
You have to realize - what its a form of slavery
Organized under a swarm of devils
Straight up - word'em up on the level
The reasons are several, most of them federal
Here is my plan anyway and I say
I got gusto, but only some I can trust - yo
Some do a bid from 1 to 10
And I never did, and plus I never been
I'm on a tier where no tears should ever fall
Cell block and locked - I never clock it y'all
'Cause time and time again time
They got me servin' to those and to them
I'm not a citizen
But ever when I catch a C-O
Sleepin' on the job - my plan is on go-ahead
On the strength, I'ma tell you the deal
I got nothin' to lose
'Cause I'm goin' for the steel

You know I caught a C-O
Fallin' asleep on death row
I grabbed his gun - then he did what I said so
And everyman's got served
Along with the time they served
Decency was deserved
To understand my demands
I gave a warnin' - I wanted the governor, y'all
And plus the warden to know
That I was innocent -
Because I'm militant
Posing a threat, you bet it's fuckin' up the government
My plan said I had to get out and break north
Just like with Oliver's neck
I had to get off - my boys had the feds in check
They couldn't do nuthin'
We had a force to instigate a prison riot
This is what it takes for peace
So I just took the piece
Black for Black inside time to cut the leash
Freedom to get out - to the ghetto - no sell out
6 C-Os we got we ought to put their head out
But I'll give 'em a chance, cause I'm civilized
As for the rest of the world, they can't realize
A cell is hell - I'm a rebel so I rebel
Between bars, got me thinkin' like an animal
Got a woman C-O to call me a copter
She tried to get away, and I popped her
Twice, right
Now who wanna get nice?
I had 6 C-Os, now it's 5 to go
And I'm serious - call me delirious
But I'm still a captive
I gotta rap this
Time to break as time grows intense
I got the steel in my right hand
Now I'm lookin' for the fence

I ventured into the courtyard
Followed by 52 brothers
Bruised, battered, and scarred but hard
Goin' out with a bang
Ready to bang out
But power from the sky
And from the tower shots rang out
A high number of dose - yes
And some came close
Figure I trigger my steel
Stand and hold my post
This is what I mean - an anti-****** machine
If I come out alive and then they won't - come clean
And then I threw up my steel bullets - flew up
Blew up, who shot...
What, who, the bazooka was who
And to my rescue, it was the S1Ws
Secured my getaway, so I just gotaway
The joint broke, from the black smoke
Then they saw it was rougher thatn the average bluffer
'Cause the steel was black, the attitude exact
Now the chase is on tellin' you to c'mon
53 brothers on the run, and we are gone

Not to mention might I add my personal experience with racial profiling which is VERY Real, and an obvious sign of discrimination.

I was with my black friend who drives an older car (1980) but is a black college student, good student from a Christian family. We were pulled over for no stated reason going to Subway to get something to eat, the police demanded to know where we were going, told the police where we were going and the policeman said "Thats what they all say". We were then ordered to get out of the car, and stand beside the road while we were PATTED DOWN which I have NEVER had happen without reasonable cause. The policeman then proceeded to search the entire car, and they ended up letting us go without a ticket because they had no justifiable cause. But I felt assaulted as I was patted down and searched for no reason.

This is not the only time this happens, another time a female police officer got backup then proceeded to walk around the car 5 times and eventually found 1 small mini-bulb on the front headlight out to explain why she pulled us over, but again no ticket because she had no cause. She then advised us not to go into the next precinct because we would get pulled over (Again just going to get something to eat. This time questioned on where we were going, why, where we lived, where we were originally from, etc.)

My friend has NO RECORD on this car, and I know him well enough (over a year) NOTHING. No reason. Good college student. Been pulled over several times in the past year for nothing, and got no ticket.

This police department has been sued several times for racism too.

Imagine being harassed like this on a regular basis? How would you feel?

Not to mention might I add my personal experience with racial profiling which is VERY Real, and an obvious sign of discrimination.

I was with my black friend who drives an older car (1980) but is a black college student, good student from a Christian family. We were pulled over for no stated reason going to Subway to get something to eat, the police demanded to know where we were going, told the police where we were going and the policeman said "Thats what they all say". We were then ordered to get out of the car, and stand beside the road while we were PATTED DOWN which I have NEVER had happen without reasonable cause. The policeman then proceeded to search the entire car, and they ended up letting us go without a ticket because they had no justifiable cause. But I felt assaulted as I was patted down and searched for no reason.

This is not the only time this happens, another time a female police officer got backup then proceeded to walk around the car 5 times and eventually found 1 small mini-bulb on the front headlight out to explain why she pulled us over, but again no ticket because she had no cause. She then advised us not to go into the next precinct because we would get pulled over (Again just going to get something to eat. This time questioned on where we were going, why, where we lived, where we were originally from, etc.)

My friend has NO RECORD on this car, and I know him well enough (over a year) NOTHING. No reason. Good college student. Been pulled over several times in the past year for nothing, and got no ticket.

This police department has been sued several times for racism too.

Imagine being harassed like this on a regular basis? How would you feel?

You can't have black friends.. didn't you know that. You are a liar. You are some holier than thou christian white bastard or a redneck kkk runners son/grandson/greatgrandson/greatgreatgrandson spawn. You are a fake and phony. If you aren't .. well you can very well show your ghetto pass at the door. *waits*. Being a decent human being isn't gonna cut it man! *waits*

Not to mention might I add my personal experience with racial profiling which is VERY Real, and an obvious sign of discrimination.

I was with my black friend who drives an older car (1980) but is a black college student, good student from a Christian family. We were pulled over for no stated reason going to Subway to get something to eat, the police demanded to know where we were going, told the police where we were going and the policeman said "Thats what they all say". We were then ordered to get out of the car, and stand beside the road while we were PATTED DOWN which I have NEVER had happen without reasonable cause. The policeman then proceeded to search the entire car, and they ended up letting us go without a ticket because they had no justifiable cause. But I felt assaulted as I was patted down and searched for no reason.

This is not the only time this happens, another time a female police officer got backup then proceeded to walk around the car 5 times and eventually found 1 small mini-bulb on the front headlight out to explain why she pulled us over, but again no ticket because she had no cause. She then advised us not to go into the next precinct because we would get pulled over (Again just going to get something to eat. This time questioned on where we were going, why, where we lived, where we were originally from, etc.)

My friend has NO RECORD on this car, and I know him well enough (over a year) NOTHING. No reason. Good college student. Been pulled over several times in the past year for nothing, and got no ticket.

This police department has been sued several times for racism too.

Imagine being harassed like this on a regular basis? How would you feel?

You can't have black friends.. didn't you know that. You are a liar. You are some holier than thou christian white bastard or a redneck kkk runners son/grandson/greatgrandson/greatgreatgrandson spawn. You are a fake and phony. If you aren't .. well you can very well show your ghetto pass at the door. *waits*. Being a decent human being isn't gonna cut it man! *waits*

Huh? LOL Did not know if that was a joke or what...

Actually far from that, and can't quiet be described as traditional Christian more Buddhist myself....

Trying to really contribute to conversation..so jokes aside...

You can't have black friends.. didn't you know that. You are a liar. You are some holier than thou christian white bastard or a redneck kkk runners son/grandson/greatgrandson/greatgreatgrandson spawn. You are a fake and phony. If you aren't .. well you can very well show your ghetto pass at the door. *waits*. Being a decent human being isn't gonna cut it man! *waits*
:confused: So how long have you been living on a diet of Oxycotin, Southern Comfort and Methamphetamines....?

:confused: So how long have you been living on a diet of Oxycotin, Southern Comfort and Methamphetamines....?

I don't take pills or drink liqour.

hmmmm.. did you ever stop to think that maybe these things are the black mans fault? its not the governments fault that a larger percent of black people decide to be drug dealers and gang members and blow each other away and drop out of school. you cant succeed if you dont try. thats how it is. i know there are black people out there that dont like it and want out and cant get out. its not the man holding you down its your selves. there are a TOTAL of 2 scholarships specificly for white people. there are thousands if not tens of thousands of scholarships available for black people. and every year there are some left over. the lack of effort and the lack of assistance arent the same things. i live next to a black family that is much more well off than mine thats good cause that is a family that will lead to more families that dont grow up in the ghetto. if ...im just gonna stop talking because i know how this will turn out... on ns if you dont agree that liberals are always correct you are racist/facist/nazi/stupid/coward or something along those lines. if people would do their own research instead of only reading the manipulated facts presented to them by 1 person then the country would be a much better place. for instance the first post on this thread. there are reasons for all of that that are self inflicted and have nothing to do with the government.

Huh? LOL Did not know if that was a joke or what...

Actually far from that, and can't quiet be described as traditional Christian more Buddhist myself....

Trying to really contribute to conversation..so jokes aside...'

Sorry. You are alright.

hmmmm.. did you ever stop to think that maybe these things are the black mans fault? its not the governments fault that a larger percent of black people decide to be drug dealers and gang members and blow each other away and drop out of school. you cant succeed if you dont try. thats how it is. i know there are black people out there that dont like it and want out and cant get out. its not the man holding you down its your selves. there are a TOTAL of 2 scholarships specificly for white people. there are thousands if not tens of thousands of scholarships available for black people. and every year there are some left over. the lack of effort and the lack of assistance arent the same things. i live next to a black family that is much more well off than mine thats good cause that is a family that will lead to more families that dont grow up in the ghetto. if ...im just gonna stop talking because i know how this will turn out... on ns if you dont agree that liberals are always correct you are racist/facist/nazi/stupid/coward or something along those lines. if people would do their own research instead of only reading the manipulated facts presented to them by 1 person then the country would be a much better place. for instance the first post on this thread. there are reasons for all of that that are self inflicted and have nothing to do with the government.

Hey. I understand some of what you are saying. Break it down into sentences.. paragraphs. I know either way you will be ripped to shreads here, but still do that.

I don't take pills or drink liqour.So it's just the Meth then.... ;)

So it's just the Meth then.... ;)


No....I don't even know what that is .. Is it Crank? That hels angles biker shit that you make from house hole cleaning stuff? I just drink beer. I guess I can be taken like I'm doing something else tho.. I CAN get out there.

No....I don't even know what that is .. Is it Crank? That hels angles biker shit that you make from house hole cleaning stuff? I just drink beer. I guess I can be taken like I'm doing something else tho.. I CAN get out there.

Not to intrude, but Meth is one of the most dangerous and fastest growing drugs in the United States, particulary is a problem in the Mid-West(Kansas)

Not to intrude, but Meth is one of the most dangerous and fastest growing drugs in the United States, particulary is a problem in the Mid-West(Kansas):rolleyes: So Kansas has finally discovered Methamphetamines? Something that began to surge epidemicly in the '90's?

And Nat, yes crank is meth. But although there are over 300 ways to manufacture it, all take things a little bit more toxic than household cleaning products.

:rolleyes: So Kansas has finally discovered Methamphetamines? Something that began to surge epidemicly in the '90's?

And Nat, yes crank is meth. But although there are over 300 ways to manufacture it, all take things a little bit more toxic than household cleaning products.


Interesting. I know I've seen cops and even that show with 'DOG' go into meth labs. But I never caught exactly, or remembered what was used. I have heard that one match head size snort will keep your ass up hours or a day. A hell of a lot more potent and dangerous than cocaine.


/hijack off

What you seem to be missing is that I was replying to the point that moving is ALWAYS an option. I pointed out that this is untrue and it is only sometimes an option. I've repeated that to you.

For example, what you said I think - "it seems to have left you with the impression that no individual should ever be expected to help themselves."

And what I actually said - "It SOMETIMES worked then. It will SOMETIMES work now."

I did read that. I guess it didn't sink in. Sorry.

If you're waiting for the government to help you, you're fucked.

The government has been "helping" African-Americans since the "War on Poverty" began in the 1960s.

It hasn't helped overall. In fact, it has condemned some of them to generational poverty and despair.

Regardless of which party controlled Congress, or which party held the Presidency.

If you're waiting for the government to help you, you're fucked.

No one is suggesting that government alone will solve the problem.

But your cliche doesn't excuse a lack of government action. Government can help.

The government has been "helping" African-Americans since the "War on Poverty" began in the 1960s.

It hasn't helped overall.

Bullshit.

Poverty overall and particularly poverty among blacks are way down from the 1960s.

link (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.html)


In fact, it has condemned some of them to generational poverty and despair.

As I said when you made this argument in the other thread: Gee, they were doing so well before the War on Poverty started.

Poverty overall and particularly poverty among blacks are way down from the 1960s.

link (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.html)


Sorry, don't buy it. Al Sharpton isn't buying it either.

You still haven't explained why they're killing each other. Are you going to blame that on whitey too?

Sorry, don't buy it. Al Sharpton isn't buying it either.

The facts speak for themselves. You are free to ignore them, I guess, but what you and allegedly Al Sharpton believe doesn't change the facts.

You still haven't explained why they're killing each other. Are you going to blame that on whitey too?

Where in the OP -- or in any post since then -- have I blamed all the problems of Black America on whitey?

The OP was showing primarily the simple truth that blacks are disadvantaged in America -- a point so utterly obvious it shouldn't require this thread.

The OP and some of my subsequent posts have also alleged that some of these disadvantages are due to (a) lingering effects of past discrimination and (b) current discrimination. Again, that hardly seems like it should be a controversial point.

For whatever reason, you want to distract away both from what I have actually said and from reality. Why is that?

The facts speak for themselves. You are free to ignore them, I guess, but what you and allegedly Al Sharpton believe doesn't change the facts.

Where in the OP -- or in any post since then -- have I blamed all the problems of Black America on whitey?


Blacks (with the exception of Bill Cosby and handful of others (we can count them on one hand) blame their plight on white people.

Period.

The guilt that white people in general feel is palpable in public situations where this is brought up.

If you blame the problems of African-Americans on their own inaction or their own stupidity (in the case of them murdering one another), if you're black you're labeled a race traitor, and if you're white, you're a racist.

THAT is the fundamental problem. Plenty of people start out incredibly poor, disadvantaged, and even discriminated against. But somehow, one ethnic group after another has managed to pull themselves up.

Why can't African-Americans do it? Because of "whitey". If you say ANYTHING else as a reason, you're either a race traitor or a racist.

Blacks (with the exception of Bill Cosby and handful of others (we can count them on one hand) blame their plight on white people.

Period.

...

Why can't African-Americans do it? Because of "whitey". If you say ANYTHING else as a reason, you're either a race traitor or a racist.

and some part of it isn't...I dunno.....people like you?

and some part of it isn't...I dunno.....people like you?

Nope. I'm able to point out situations where they're obviously their own problem - like the firearm murders of blacks by blacks.

But they wouldn't THINK for a minute that they're the problem.

Blacks (with the exception of Bill Cosby and handful of others (we can count them on one hand) blame their plight on white people.

Period.

The guilt that white people in general feel is palpable in public situations where this is brought up.

If you blame the problems of African-Americans on their own inaction or their own stupidity (in the case of them murdering one another), if you're black you're labeled a race traitor, and if you're white, you're a racist.

THAT is the fundamental problem. Plenty of people start out incredibly poor, disadvantaged, and even discriminated against. But somehow, one ethnic group after another has managed to pull themselves up.

Why can't African-Americans do it? Because of "whitey". If you say ANYTHING else as a reason, you're either a race traitor or a racist.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

If you want to act like there is no legacy of past discrimination that is effecting blacks, then you are an asshat and possibly a racist.

If you want to act like there is no current discrimination that is effecting blacks, then you are an asshat and possibly a racist.

But no one has argued for a long time that all of the problems of Black American are due to discrimination alone. You'll find that even people like Al Sharpton are critical of aspects of black culture that are hurting black progress.

You want to oversimplify the issue into a false dichotomy because that allows you to play your own version of the race card. I'd say that was cute, but it ain't.

Once the blacks shape up their acts their lot should improve. Nobody but themselves are holding them down anymore. It is a shame that working hard, getting an education, and abstaining from wickedness is looked down upon by some of the Blacks as "acting white."

Hey, the great thing about America is the opportunities that people have, I am all for equal opportunities, but if people do not take advantage of these opportunities, I really do not feel bad for them.

I have to tell you though that all is not lost. I have noticed, particularly among the protestant blacks that there are blacks out there that are true credits to their race and their country. I bet that it has always been this way.

Nope. I'm able to point out situations where they're obviously their own problem - like the firearm murders of blacks by blacks.

But they wouldn't THINK for a minute that they're the problem.

Nice projection of a false group mind onto blacks. They all think alike. And they all blame "whitey" for everything. None of them are critical of gangster culture and other problems internal to the black community. :rolleyes:

But, pray tell, why is there a problem of black on black crime?

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

If you want to act like there is no legacy of past discrimination that is effecting blacks, then you are an asshat and possibly a racist.

If you want to act like there is no current discrimination that is effecting blacks, then you are an asshat and possibly a racist.

See? Just like I told you.


But no one has argued for a long time that all of the problems of Black American are due to discrimination alone. You'll find that even people like Al Sharpton are critical of aspects of black culture that are hurting black progress.

Like when Al calls Bill Cosby a race traitor? Hah!

If any policy reforms are needed we should honor our American ideals and values by simply increasing the opportunities for all Americans. We could do this through improved higher education assistance, school vouchers, and by first rate public orphanages instead of that foster care garbage.

We also need to fight the damn pro-lifers who are ruining our country with single family households and make them accountable for their vile spawnings.

Blacks (with the exception of Bill Cosby and handful of others (we can count them on one hand) blame their plight on white people.

Period.

The guilt that white people in general feel is palpable in public situations where this is brought up.

If you blame the problems of African-Americans on their own inaction or their own stupidity (in the case of them murdering one another), if you're black you're labeled a race traitor, and if you're white, you're a racist.

THAT is the fundamental problem. Plenty of people start out incredibly poor, disadvantaged, and even discriminated against. But somehow, one ethnic group after another has managed to pull themselves up.

Why can't African-Americans do it? Because of "whitey". If you say ANYTHING else as a reason, you're either a race traitor or a racist.

Oh, goodness, this level of ridiculousness hurts my brain.

So let's see. Only a handful of black people take responsibility for their actions (so few they are less than five), but you later give examples of "race-traitors". Hmmmm... I guess this word you suggest is always applied to these traitors has only been applied to 5 or less people, huh?

You gotta love when an argument is so stupid even the poster can't make it make sense for entire post.

Let's sum up. Black people are at fault. White people suffer because of it.

When will those awful monkeys, (Oops, can't say that. It would reveal your real thoughts on the matter. Must stick with the code words.)... um, I mean, black people (sorry not all of them, just all except for about five of them) learn to stop harming the white man? Pobrecito blanco, when will the oppression of white people end?

See? Just like I told you.

Yes, yes, how brilliant a strategy. You say racist things and then cry, "see, he pointed out my racism. How dare he call it as it is?"

Your argument is stupid. When I call a person's argument stupid, people always say I called their argument stupid. It's a terrible state of affairs.


Like when Al calls Bill Cosby a race traitor? Hah!

Al Sharpton says stupid things at times. That's why TCT said EVEN Al Sharpton, as if Al Sharpton is often the problem.

See? Just like I told you.

There you go with the false dichotomy.

If you completely deny the legacy of past discrimination and completely deny that there is currently discrimination against blacks, then you are an asshat and possibly a racist. You certainly are dead wrong.

But that is different from saying that all of the problems of black america are caused by past or current racism.

Like when Al calls Bill Cosby a race traitor? Hah!

Care to provide a cite?

This is what I found in the Washington Post:

Several African American leaders said yesterday they mostly agreed with Cosby's message of personal responsibility, but opinion was more volatile among the young people at whom Cosby leveled his comments.

"It's the same thing I've been saying since 1976," said Jesse L. Jackson, the president of the Rainbow/PUSH group, who was at Cosby's side on Thursday. He criticized rap-music artists who liberally use derogatory terms for blacks and women, as well as black and white listeners who blithely repeat the words. "It's unacceptable," Jackson said.

Al Sharpton, who met with Cosby two weeks ago, said he had a "mixed reaction" to the actor-comedian's comments. "I agree that we have to do something about the internal contradiction of our community," said Sharpton, who ran against Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the presumptive Democratic nominee, in the presidential primaries. "But we also must be careful not to relieve the general community of what they've done to our community."


link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24594-2004Jul2.html)

See? Just like I told you.

I had this image of someone "I bet those damned liberals will call me a racist just because I said we should kill all the niggers."

Another thing that we need is easier credit access to all American entrepeneurs. We need a public pool of money that will invest in our undercapitalized entrepeneurs. We need more than loans. We need to have corporation set up assistance and buy up equity and be able to require the distribution of dividends to grow the fund. We also need easier access to low interest business loans.

It is a shame when ghetto kids think that the only entrepeneurial options available to them involve gangsta rap, illegal drugs, fencing, or prostitutes.

Of course, the ignorant PC liberals probably do not like corporations so this will never happen.

Another thing that we need is easier credit access to all American entrepeneurs. We need a public pool of money that will invest in our undercapitalized entrepeneurs. We need more than loans. We need to have corporation set up assistance and buy up equity and be able to require the distribution of dividends to grow the fund. We also need easier access to low interest business loans.

It is a shame when ghetto kids think that the only entrepeneurial options available to them involve gangsta rap, illegal drugs, fencing, or prostitutes.

Of course, the ignorant PC liberals probably do not like corporations so this will never happen.

you know, you had a great point til the end. Next time, I suggest, whatever last little parting comment you have in mind....let it go.

Because I would like to point out that what you advocate is called micro-credit, it has been a great success in africa, and a recent LIBERAL economist won the nobel prize for it recently.

Nope. I'm able to point out situations where they're obviously their own problem - like the firearm murders of blacks by blacks.

But they wouldn't THINK for a minute that they're the problem.

THEY wouldn't? Hmmmmm... I love that you know what THEY all think. Beautiful argument. Just beautiful. No flaws at all.

Many black people openly rally against black on black crime and other actions that increase the plight of black people in America. However, they recognize that this problem is caused by SOME black people. Racists don't notice the difference between SOME and all.

However, the white people support (mostly males since that was all that voted or was voted upon) in this country have a history of legalized oppression that lasted until a generation ago. Even if no longer systemic racism still exists. That you would pretend.it doesn't is very telling. That you pretend that pointing out when statements are racist (like when one pretends that all white people are racist or one pretends that all black people have a hive mind) is the problem just shows how far from employing reason your argument is.